DescentBB

It was a snoozer of a democratic "debate."

Did anyone bother watching?

They all wore black like they were a bunch of morticians...which pretty much sums up the democratic party

so Nightshade rejects it, and likely saw little of it. Woody is commenting on fashions. All the while, Andy Borowitz nailed it, "I didn't agree with everything I heard, but at least had the feeling of being alright with these people living amongst us"
Yes, I watched good bits of it, despite having unruly grandkids needing attention for some parts. Hillary started slow, as Coopers question sort of floored her.She rebounded well, and as my wife noted, consistently comes off as intelligent. She also noted that Clinton comes off as sort of aggressive on foreign intervention. The criticism of her past judgement regarding Iraq is every bit as crucial as Chafee made it out to be. Bernie did well overall, showing class and civility and a great touch of humor in stating that most of America is sick of hearing about Clinton's emails. He also showed a great degree of political pragmatism in his approach to gun matters, and brought out his consistent views about foreign intervention and keeping a high threshold for military utilization.Webb, as I had hoped, brought some different perspectives to the table, but seems far too aggressive in plans for the Middle East for my tastes.His nostalgiac views of the old south make him a non-starter on a national stage. He seems petty this am whining about lack of face time. Chafee really doesn't have a prayer. Seems to be a nice fellow, but why it took him that long to leave the GOP eludes me. He doesn't fit in with any aspect of that party since circa 1990. O'Malley got his face out there but I suspect little traction. Biden might be the best combination of the strong points of all with far less negatives, and I'll bet his people saw that last night. Overall, a civil group. Boring? Sure, if you can't hack actually talking about real issues at a far more detailed level. If kindergarten level thinking is your thing, I'm sure the GOP has another onslaught coming your way soon.

meanwhile, as almost a perfect illustration of how the Dems showed you a group of adults talking about solutions and proposals to deal with real issues, and the contrast with the other camp, I offer this:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/m ... reans-dogs

Huckabee wants to talk about Koreans cooking dogs. I dare not glance at what Trump brought to the intellectual table.

I heard a lot of outlining of problems and wish lists, along with a lot of promises a president can’t keep…even with a loyal Congress.

But, I seemed to miss those details….there were a few, but not many.

And yea, I watched the entire thing.

Spidey wrote:I heard a lot of outlining of problems and wish lists, along with a lot of promises a president can’t keep…even with a loyal Congress.

But, I seemed to miss those details….there were a few, but not many.

And yea, I watched the entire thing.

maybe not to-the-letter specifics, but certainly quite a bit of intelligent back and forth on approaches that haven't worked, stuff that works elsewhere, lessons learned from recent history, and a couple of the candidates going out of their way to emphasize consensus and unity. So far above what we've seen from the other camp as to laughable to compare. It was like seeing adults after two rounds of watching 6 year olds on the GOP stage. Sure, any campaign is going to give you wishlists, but how about Bernie Sanders spelling out the real cultural issues around gun control? How about a couple people going back to lessons learned from Iraq and applying them to Syria(in different ways, I noticed)? No bland BS about 'taking our country back' or 'putting God into America' or 'build a wall'. Real, adult stuff. They should be proud(they being the Dems) of the people they put forth last night.

Actually that remark about the Koreans is pretty funny...if you don't have your head so far up your ass that you can't take a joke.

God forbid a Republican make a joke, do you know a huge group of young people get their political news from Jon Stewart. Satire is a mainstay of Democratic political discourse.

I didn't watch it through, just segments of it. I can't stand Hillary. She gets me ticked off just listening to her. Everything that comes out of her mouth is some platitude or rehearsed talking point. She never sounds genuine and comes off with an air of self importance and arrogance. I was disappointed that no one pinned her down on her recent TPP flip flop, or maybe I missed that. No principles with her at all. I do hope Bernie gets a rise in his poll numbers and it was too bad that Webb looked stiff and uncomfortable. He's probably out.

Spidey wrote:Actually that remark about the Koreans is pretty funny...if you don't have your head so far up your ass that you can't take a joke.

God forbid a Republican make a joke, do you know a huge group of young people get their political news from Jon Stewart. Satire is a mainstay of Democratic political discourse.

Conservatives usually make either crude jokes, jokes at other people's expense or insult people for entertainment. Liberal satire is more sophisticated, is usually created by using more than just one brain cell and actually has a modicum of truth to it, which does make it funny. And Spidey, news flash. Jon Stewart retired weeks ago. No young person is watching him now.

Spidey wrote:Actually that remark about the Koreans is pretty funny...if you don't have your head so far up your ass that you can't take a joke.

God forbid a Republican make a joke, do you know a huge group of young people get their political news from Jon Stewart. Satire is a mainstay of Democratic political discourse.

It's encouraged when it comes from a comedian, but when it comes from a politician, it always comes off as awkward.

So what...still funny.

no, from one aspiring to be President, it comes off as small, racist, and childish. Pretty much the par on the R side of things this campaign.

I don’t know how you can say it was racist…Korean is a nationality, not a race, now if he had used “Asian” then it would be racist.

ok, negative ethnic stereotype, if you will. Still, I'd hope you see my point....what it DOESN'T seem to be in the least is Presidential.

I got a chance to watch it tonight, and as usual, I took notes while I watched. Here they are:


Clinton. I cringed when I first hear her voice, but that feeling passed quickly because of it's familiarity. She had pressure put on her right from the start and handled herself way better than I expected. She's obviously been training for this and I think she's got the strength to go all the way if needed. Clinton aggressively attacked her competition, but only time will tell how that will play out. Predictably, she got too much airtime.

Sanders. He's a beast. He's unbelievably articulate and impassioned. Some of his responses were a little weak, but he's stronger than Obama was at this time in 2008 when he beat Hillary (and Hillary is waaaay more polished today, so this will be interesting). I'm contemplating a donation to his campaign.

Chaffe. Seemed strong at the start then slowly lost steam. He's good at delivering a speech, but not improvising.

Webb. His opening remarks started shaky but he ended great. I liked his confidence, I just wish he wasn't so stiff. I like that he mentioned the threat of cyber-warfare. He really didn't get enough airtime. What was great is that he answered every question with a direct link to some legislation he supported/opposed. That said, he's not going to make it any further and that's sad because I think his perspective is important for Democrats to hear.

O'Malley. He's very soothing! I like it. He has a very emotive appeal and handled every question beautifully. If not a president, he's be a fantastic vice president.

Cooper. He did a fantastic job as moderator! Everyone loves and respects Cooper and I think that helped the debate tremendously.

Bonus: Sanders backing up Clinton on the email issue, in my eyes, made it a non-issue. That single event contrasted the amazing differences between the Democratic party and the Republicans, and I think that excitement will be prophetic.

Spidey wrote:I don’t know how you can say it was racist…Korean is a nationality, not a race, now if he had used “Asian” then it would be racist.

I have no opinion on Huckabee's comment, but Korean is only a nationality and can't also be a race? Why? For instance, when you look at the racism in Asia against other Asians, it becomes clear that at the very least they don't consider themselves the same race (and they aren't discriminating based on the color of your passport).

Well then,I guess we can say Swedes are a race or Zambian or heck...even rednecks.

woodchip wrote:Well then,I guess we can say Swedes are a race...

Why not? Historically, in America, there has been racism against Irish and Italians, amongst other Europeans.

In any case, it doesn't even matter whether the race actually exists in any realist sense for there to exist racism. (Some for example would argue that all humans are of the same race.) What's more important for establishing racism is whether the person saying the potentially racist remark perceives there to exist that race.

(Again, I know nothing about Huckabee's comment--I just found the remark "it can't be racism because Korean isn't a race" a peculiar response.)

Jeff250 wrote:

Spidey wrote:I don’t know how you can say it was racist…Korean is a nationality, not a race, now if he had used “Asian” then it would be racist.

I have no opinion on Huckabee's comment, but Korean is only a nationality and can't also be a race? Why? For instance, when you look at the racism in Asia against other Asians, it becomes clear that at the very least they don't consider themselves the same race (and they aren't discriminating based on the color of your passport).

I didn’t say it “couldn’t” be a race, but I did point out that it is "not" a race.

why don't we address the real question here: was Huckabee's remark in any way Presidential?

I would say no, but does everything that comes out of a candidate’s mouth have to be presidential?

How about pandering, lying, making false promises and flip flopping…is that presidential?

How about telling a small business owner that he doesn’t deserve to be in business because he can’t afford to pay his employee’s health insurance…is that presidential?

Spidey wrote:I would say no, but does everything that comes out of a candidate’s mouth have to be presidential?

I would say no to that, but then again, it really helps if you are trying to emerge from a 16 person train wreck of a field.

How about pandering, lying, making false promises and flip flopping…is that presidential?

historically speaking, yes, it is.

How about telling a small business owner that he doesn’t deserve to be in business because he can’t afford to pay his employee’s health insurance…is that presidential?

not aware of anyone doing that, so not going to deal in made up remarks.

then again, the 'eating dogs' remark pales compared to this discussion:

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2015/ ... e-slavery/


Are there not WORKHOUSES? Gawd, Dickens would appreciate the current 'conservative' movement, just for the material they provide.

I did not make up that remark.

Although is has been paraphrased, because I can't remember the exact words.

callmeslick wrote:then again, the 'eating dogs' remark pales compared to this discussion:

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2015/ ... e-slavery/


Are there not WORKHOUSES? Gawd, Dickens would appreciate the current 'conservative' movement, just for the material they provide.

So you do not think that someone on the public dole should work for the money they receive if they are physically fit and healthy? Or it is better that they just sit around doing nothing?

woodchip wrote:So you do not think that someone on the public dole should work for the money they receive if they are physically fit and healthy? Or it is better that they just sit around doing nothing?

What about those who aren't physically fit, or are permanently ill and incapacitated? What about someone who's physically incapacitated, but can't get a doctor's say so? Should they be allowed to sit on the public dole? I get the impression from most conservatives that everyone has to work, no matter what their physical capacity or infirmity. No work, no live.

As to Huckabee, I see he's a little chubby. Maybe some good physical labor will shape him up a little.

TC covered SOME of the bases, but when you are calling for indentured servitude for ANYONE, you don't grasp the concept of fairness that led the nation to abolish workhouses over 150 years ago.

I know what woody is concerned about because there are those persistent, constant and true stories of doctors helping people fake an injury or illness so that they can get kickbacks from the government and help crooked people get disability when they don't deserve it. But that's the problem that should be addressed, not by making the system so hard to work with that those who are truly disabled can't get help or by destroying the system altogether, which is what I think most conservatives really want. It's a inhumane way to treat those who really need help in a civilized society.

Spidey wrote:So what...still funny.

Oh, I'm sure it was.

but do you really want a potential leader to come across as something like this?

If Soupy Sales can get elected...so be it.

If you think he is an ass...don't vote for him.

tunnelcat wrote:

woodchip wrote:So you do not think that someone on the public dole should work for the money they receive if they are physically fit and healthy? Or it is better that they just sit around doing nothing?

What about those who aren't physically fit, or are permanently ill and incapacitated? What about someone who's physically incapacitated, but can't get a doctor's say so? Should they be allowed to sit on the public dole? I get the impression from most conservatives that everyone has to work, no matter what their physical capacity or infirmity. No work, no live.

and your perceptions would be wrong. And stop trying to put words in my mouth.

I was putting words into the mouths of the typical conservative, not you specifically woody. I am asking you how you would like to see things fixed to purge those lazy bums from the system and still provide the assistance for those who really need it when things go bad in life or their health deteriorates and they can't work. Most solutions I hear from conservatives are to get rid of the system entirely. Private enterprise will not take up the slack, unless there's profit in it.

All I hear from most conservatives is how we need to get rid of those lazy welfare bums and that evil, expensive social security and medicare socialistic crap, without thought to what happens with those people who actually NEED it, other than their usual sucking off the public dole examples. If politicians want to make lazy people get off their butts and work for a living, that's all well and fine. I don't like paying for lazy people sitting on their butts either. But the politicians need to do their jobs and change the system and set it up to work with that as the goal, not sit there and pontificate how we need to get rid of those expensive government entitlement programs as the solution the problem.

I thought the point made was to make people who committed a crime work to pay it off, how did it get to welfare?

EDIT:

As to the point in slicks link…I think it is something to consider…should we make someone work to pay off their debt to society or let then rot in a prison?

Of course after the spin the authors put on the point, you have an absurd accusation, instead of a reasonable discussion, but of course that’s how the left wins all of the arguments…just create a strawman, and lie.

Spidey wrote:I thought the point made was to make people who committed a crime work to pay it off, how did it get to welfare?

you are correct, in the context of Huckabee's interview. Woody tried to expand it to 'the public dole', and it went from there. Either way, conscription of other people to servitude is morally reprehensible and the fact that any member of the GOP field for President can bat that idea around without being publicly censured by his own party and any right-thinking people is depressing.

tunnelcat wrote:I was putting words into the mouths of the typical conservative, not you specifically woody. I am asking you how you would like to see things fixed to purge those lazy bums from the system and still provide the assistance for those who really need it when things go bad in life or their health deteriorates and they can't work. Most solutions I hear from conservatives are to get rid of the system entirely. Private enterprise will not take up the slack, unless there's profit in it.

All I hear from most conservatives is how we need to get rid of those lazy welfare bums and that evil, expensive social security and medicare socialistic crap, without thought to what happens with those people who actually NEED it, other than their usual sucking off the public dole examples. If politicians want to make lazy people get off their butts and work for a living, that's all well and fine. I don't like paying for lazy people sitting on their butts either. But the politicians need to do their jobs and change the system and set it up to work with that as the goal, not sit there and pontificate how we need to get rid of those expensive government entitlement programs as the solution the problem.

Actually TC, if you remember, it was Bill Clinton who reformed welfare (modeled after my state of MI under John Engler) and set time limitations for healthy welfare recipients.:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_ ... tunity_Act

Jim Webb slams the extremism of both parties on his way out the door

woodchip wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:I was putting words into the mouths of the typical conservative, not you specifically woody. I am asking you how you would like to see things fixed to purge those lazy bums from the system and still provide the assistance for those who really need it when things go bad in life or their health deteriorates and they can't work. Most solutions I hear from conservatives are to get rid of the system entirely. Private enterprise will not take up the slack, unless there's profit in it.

All I hear from most conservatives is how we need to get rid of those lazy welfare bums and that evil, expensive social security and medicare socialistic crap, without thought to what happens with those people who actually NEED it, other than their usual sucking off the public dole examples. If politicians want to make lazy people get off their butts and work for a living, that's all well and fine. I don't like paying for lazy people sitting on their butts either. But the politicians need to do their jobs and change the system and set it up to work with that as the goal, not sit there and pontificate how we need to get rid of those expensive government entitlement programs as the solution the problem.

Actually TC, if you remember, it was Bill Clinton who reformed welfare (modeled after my state of MI under John Engler) and set time limitations for healthy welfare recipients.:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_ ... tunity_Act

So why are conservatives still griping about welfare? I thought Clinton fixed it for them? But if you want a true gripe, Clinton's the one who repealed Glass Steagall and gave us NAFTA. What a great guy. It's why I don't like Clinton or his wife. Now Obama has given us the TPP when he originally campaigned against it. It seems the Dems do more Republican things than Republicans do everyday. Conservatives, at least the normal ones, should be grateful for Clinton and Obama.

Lothar wrote:

Jim Webb slams the extremism of both parties on his way out the door

That statement doesn't explain why Sanders and Trump are so popular and Webb only garnered around 1%. It's too bad really. I liked Webb and he just couldn't get the traction and exposure. I guess the loud mouths of Hillary and Bernie were overpowering everything. I did hear he's thinking of running as a independent though. Fat chance in this political climate. We're more polarized than ever it appears.

Lothar wrote:

Jim Webb slams the extremism of both parties on his way out the door

unfortunately(remember, I gave him start-up money), Sen Webb just never generated ANY interest. He made few public appearances(see Bernie and Trump), developed no real talking points. Hell, the most cohesive statement he made since he got in was today,and THAT was essentially a whine. I was very disappointed in his overall effort, and to blame his failure on the system was weak. All of which was elaborated upon in my response to an email I got earlier feeling out my financial support for an independant candidacy from one of his lead shills.

callmeslick wrote:I was very disappointed in his overall effort, and to blame his failure on the system was weak.

True words, though I can't help feeling that the system kind of perpetuates this kind of problem. He wasn't ready and clearly needed both financial support and the support of professional campaign managers to help him prepare for the debate. Had he done better, things would be different, but it seems harder and harder to get the ball rolling.