pucho812
Well-known member
I think the clear winner last night was anderson cooper, of all the people cnn has as moderators, he showed them how it should be done.
first democratic party debate. Discuss
- Thread starter pucho812
- Start date
Help Support GroupDIY Audio Forum:
Winetree
Well-known member
The great race.
Clinton, ( years of scandal ), a socialist, and 3 never heard of's
Clinton, ( years of scandal ), a socialist, and 3 never heard of's
I couldn't watch, but I still couldn't miss Bernie hugging Hillary and telling her no to worry about emails. 
At least the democrats follow Reagan's 11th commandment "don't attack candidates from your own party".
It seems like CNN didn't chum the water with their questions the way the republican debates did, less trying to pick fights between the candidates.
I've heard of Webb and he has some cred but is probably too old. Biden is the elephant (not) in the room. No surprises and in a debate that's good for them.
JR
PS: I didn't realize how much I really hate politics. It's like a bad, drunk softball game, that you have to pick sides and watch. 8)
At least the democrats follow Reagan's 11th commandment "don't attack candidates from your own party".
It seems like CNN didn't chum the water with their questions the way the republican debates did, less trying to pick fights between the candidates.
I've heard of Webb and he has some cred but is probably too old. Biden is the elephant (not) in the room. No surprises and in a debate that's good for them.
JR
PS: I didn't realize how much I really hate politics. It's like a bad, drunk softball game, that you have to pick sides and watch. 8)
pucho812
Well-known member
I still do not understand a democratic socialist.
Does that mean the majority gets to pick what gets handed out to everyone?
Does that mean the majority gets to pick what gets handed out to everyone?
It's an (imaginary?) definition of socialism that allows Bernie to remain a senator. ;Dpucho812 said:
We have been a little bit pregnant with socialism for a long time but we need to be careful not to kill the golden goose of capitalism that pays for all this government largess. Socialism depends on OPM (other people's money) so hard to sustain after the revolution.
JR
M
mattiasNYC
Guest
JohnRoberts said:
Because in Capitalism a wealthy person literally printed up his own million dollar bills, he didn't get "other people's money".
I hope a glib retort in kind isn't too upsetting.
I like to think I am a capitalist but can't print my own money.. I have to earn it the old fashioned way, by inventing something that didn't exist before, but people want. Then selling it to them for more than it cost me to build them.mattiasNYC said:
Econ 101....
JR
jasonallenh
Well-known member
pucho812 said:
They actually asked him in the debate... his answer was something to the effect of "A democratic socialist is someone who is not ok with 1% owning more than the other 99% combined."
That's certainly quite vague, but then again we do have an income inequality problem as well as some wall-street types that have been allowed to cheat. He seems pretty focused on that.
jasonallenh
Well-known member
JohnRoberts said:
Webb had the most bizarre moment of the night...
When asked "what political enemy are you most proud of," he said something like "I was going to say the guy that wounded me in combat, but due to my grenade, he no longer counts."
I don't think he had an answer after that either... Disappointing, because I too was under the impression that he could have been a strong candidate.
I kind of like that answer but being a master debater is why we have so many lawyers in office... They debate for a living.jasonallenh said:JohnRoberts said:
Webb had the most bizarre moment of the night...
When asked "what political enemy are you most proud of," he said something like "I was going to say the guy that wounded me in combat, but due to my grenade, he no longer counts."
JR
I watched the entire thing, unfortunately. It felt like a DNC staged show, not a debate. I was quite surprised to see Bernie played along. The "damn emails" response blatantly gives away the staging aspect. The DNC has all of their eggs in the Hillary basket with no potential golden goose to salvage the trainwreck like in 2008.
I felt bad for Jim Webb. He seemed to be the only one approaching the debate with realistic ideas. I had to do a double take when he discussed urban vs. rural in response to a gun control question. Was I watching a DNC debate? When did an adult show up?
I felt bad for Jim Webb. He seemed to be the only one approaching the debate with realistic ideas. I had to do a double take when he discussed urban vs. rural in response to a gun control question. Was I watching a DNC debate? When did an adult show up?
If your were surprised by Bernie's response about the emails, you haven't been listening to Bernie. He's not going to carry water for the GOP and its trumped-up taking points against Clinton (Benghazi/Kevin McCarthy, anyone?) If you thought Jim Webb would be a viable candidate, you haven't paid attention to Jim Webb. If you don't what democratic socialism/socialist democracy might look like, you haven't been paying attention to the governance of your own country (all you USA types at least) since, oh, the days of Teddy Roosevelt or so.
Marik
Well-known member
pucho812 said:
The term becomes much more clear when you start thinking of republican socialism
Best, M
gltech
Well-known member
pucho812 said:
I don't understand how we could have a simple system that says, everybody's life, liberty and property is protected, and other than that, everybody go make everything better! But then corrupt non-government people hook up with corrupt government people and mess all that up, and the solution is more government that the non-government can hook up with.
The basic dichotomy is whether voters view larger government as the answer or the problem.gltech said:
This seems self-evident (to me), but apparently not to more than half the voters.
Interesting times.
JR
PS: I have been aware of Jim Webb for a long time. He served in the Reagan administration, and the military, so isn't a typical empty suit politician. That said he doesn't appear to be running seriously this time, or willing to pander to the masses.
JohnRoberts said:
I quit arguing with Libertarians (those great champions of small govt.) when I realized many (most? all?) had no handle on the past. The US in the late 1800s is an excellent example of Libertarianism (or a facsimile thereof) flourishing. Wealth inequality and labor abuse were extreme, pollution was unchecked (and there were pollution issues back then), vast swaths of the nation's forests clearcut, a boom and bust economy that went from vast highs to extreme lows. Over time we saw labor laws come into effect, environmental laws, the protection of large quantities of park and wilderness area, economic regulatory agencies to try to address the lows as well as the highs of the economy, etc. etc. This was a natural and necessary response to unfettered capitalism--regulation or revolution, the choice is yours.
The issues with big govt,. in my opinion, come less from the relatively powerless people in the welfare line than wealthy and powerful corporations that rely on tax $$$$ and/or their outsized influence to pad their bottom lines--the Military-Industrial Complex that Eisenhower famously warned us about, the TBTF banks, and many others.
And as far as I've noticed, the only candidate addressing that issue is Bernie Sanders, who wants to break up the TBTF banks--an issue at least some Libertarian-leaning/small govt. types might agree with him on. He also wants to overturn Citizens United and refuses to have superPAC support.
I've been around this tree before and I do not advocate for un-fettered capitalism. The dangers of that are pretty well understood.hodad said:
Responsible regulation has it's place and if applied properly helps level the playing field between small business and big business who often co-opt regulation for competitive benefit.
Regulating the (lows and highs) of the economy is politicians believing their own press... Within reason the economic cycles of expansion with brief periods of recession is actually healthy to weed out the weak sisters and help the economy grow. Instead we get only 2% GDP growth after years of 0% interest rates that caused economic distortions (bubbles) we haven't even perceived yet. When (if) they finally raise interest rates and the tide goes out we will see who lost their swimming trunks. Too easy borrowing costs for too long, distorts good economic business decisions.
Uh oh we may agree... ;D The bigger the handle of government spending the more lobbyists and their kind will be willing to spend to gain influence. Likewise the government decision making is never as good as millions of individuals.
I'd be glad to overturn Citizens United, if we also restrict union political activity by government workers. Why do they need unions? To protect them from the government? These unions enjoy a less than arms length quid pro quo, with their employer. These again are just symptoms of the huge federal spending pot of gold that everybody wants a piece of..
---------
Bernie is just channeling populist (Elizabeth Warren-isms). Dodd-Frank is already trying to regulate big banks smaller and making progress in that direction, while the regulatory burden makes it harder for mid-sized banks to join the big bank club... A little ironic because the government blessed or even forced some of mergers during 2007-8 credit collapse that actually made these big banks even bigger. Then sued them for the behavior of failing banks they bought, to save the economy..
Deposit Banking is pretty straightforward, and could almost be made a function of the post office,,, Investment banking is far more complex with international competitiveness influenced by size. Of course this requires smart regulation, but the government regulators are always managing the last crisis not the next one. (ignoring climate change which IMO is not next, not even real ).
JR
PS: I agree the libertarian philosophy is not very practical when exposed to the real world circumstances..
JR: I would love to see the post office become the deposits bank for the masses and have a simple regulated fee structure. Just remove simple banking from the banksters. Put some postal people to work doing honest work instead of a dying letter / junk mail server. Total works for me.
Political messages that are framed to appeal to low information voters from both sides are so simplistic to be borderline inaccurate, certainly not thoughtful discussion.Indecline said:
I do not search out such messages on face book and block hyperbolic sources from left and right pushing that spin. My latest frustration with FUbook is that such uninformed messages that (only one) friend of mine may like or comment on doesn't let me comment back on it, unless I share the thread to all my other friends...
Since I refuse to perpetuate borderline misinformation by sharing with even more friends, I have had to bite my tongue until it's a bloody stump... (figuratively).
JR
