Last Night's Democratic Debates

Zascar

Did anyone watch it? I just watched it - link here.

I'm a big sanders fan but I was disappointed by him - he did a good job but he did not stand out enough from the other candidates - he was not strong or firm enough on the issues and the differences between him and the other candidates views. Clinton did a great job of pushing some topics that are new to her but Sanders have been taking about for ages. The good thing Bernie has done is help push Hilary left.

I still think any of them would be better in office than any Republican...

Amerika

Hillary won. Not because she was good, but because she didn't tank it and hurt herself. Probably good enough to keep Biden out of the race. But... the country always does better under a Democratic president? Earth to Hillary... Where have you been the last 7 years?

Sanders is entertaining, but there is a snowball's chance in hell he could get done what he wants. And his greatest moment in the debate was emphatically defending a probable criminal in Hillary? (And I thought he might take flight with all that arm waving.)

O'Malley and Chafe... MEH.

I could actually see myself voting for Webb. He was the only one not living in Oz and had a common sense approach to the role of president.

Thargor

Amerika wrote: »

But... the country always does better under a Democratic president? Earth to Hillary... Where have you been the last 7 years?

Yes what has that Obama character done with the utopia he inherited from George Bush? Everything has gotten worse, especially the economy!

BoJack Horseman

Here's some reflections on the candidates responses to defense & foreign policy

Amerika

Thargor wrote: »

Yes what has that Obama character done with the utopia he inherited from George Bush? Everything has gotten worse, especially the economy!

He’s added about $9 Trillion to the deficit. The rich keep getting richer, the middle class are shrinking, and the rolls of the poor are increasing. He's given us a failed economic stimulus plan. Foreign policy is a shambles. And he leads by edict... Just for starters.

Overheal

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/every-presidents-executive-actions-in-one-chart/

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/every-presidents-executive-actions-in-one-chart/

A wise man once said... "It's not the quantity, but the quality, that really counts." And you can quote me on that.

Overheal

A wiser man said "agree to disagree" :pac:

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

A wiser man said "agree to disagree" :pac:

I've said that, also. :pac:

Thargor

Amerika wrote: »

He’s added about $9 Trillion to the deficit. The rich keep getting richer, the middle class are shrinking, and the rolls of the poor are increasing. He's given us a failed economic stimulus plan. Foreign policy is a shambles. And he leads by edict... Just for starters.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/deficit-shrinks-1-trillion-obama-era?CID=sm_fb_maddow

In the not-too-distant past, talk in the political world of the U.S. budget deficit was all the rage. As the Tea Party “movement” took shape, conservatives quite literally took to the streets to express their fear that President Obama and Democrats were failing to address the “out of control” deficit.

Congressional Republicans agreed. As recently as 2013, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) was asked about the radicalism of his political agenda and he responded, “[W]hat I would say is extreme is a trillion-dollar deficit every year.” Around the same time, then-House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) argued that Congress should be “focused on trying to deal with the ultimate problem, which is this growing deficit.”

The Republican rhetoric was ridiculously wrong. We don’t have a trillion-dollar deficit; the deficit isn’t the ultimate problem; and it’s not growing.
Strong growth in individual tax collection drove the U.S. budget deficit to a fresh Obama-era low in fiscal 2015, the Treasury Department said Thursday.

For the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30 the shortfall was $439 billion, a decrease of 9%, or $44 billion, from last year. The deficit is the smallest of Barack Obama’s presidency and the lowest since 2007 in both dollar terms and as a percentage of gross domestic product.
Keep in mind, in the Obama era, the deficit has shrunk by $1 trillion. That’s “trillion,” with a “t.” As a percentage of the economy, the deficit is now down to just 2.5%, which is below the average of the past half-century, and down from 9.8% when the president took office.

Eric Cartman

Zascar wrote: »

Did anyone watch it? I just watched it - link here.

I'm a big sanders fan but I was disappointed by him - he did a good job but he did not stand out enough from the other candidates - he was not strong or firm enough on the issues and the differences between him and the other candidates views. Clinton did a great job of pushing some topics that are new to her but Sanders have been taking about for ages. The good thing Bernie has done is help push Hilary left.

I still think any of them would be better in office than any Republican...

two of the silliest things Ive heard all day.

I would rather anyone but hillary , that said her going more left just makes her less and less attractive to on the fence voters. America doesn't like left.

Amerika

Thargor wrote: »

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/deficit-shrinks-1-trillion-obama-era?CID=sm_fb_maddow

I was wrong on the $9 Trillion. On Jan. 20, 2009 (the day Obama took office), the total federal debt was $10,626 Trillion. It currently sits at $18,412 Trillion. Only around $8 Trillion so far added under Obama, but since there move than a year to go in his reign, the $9 Trillion number isn't far fetched.

Overheal

And what is that debt made up of? I tried looking this up the other night but had not much luck, you can find out on a infochart reminiscent of tiramisu which countries we owe money to, but you can't find much digestable data that might otherwise show what portion of that extra $8 trillion was the result of 2 foreign wars (the deployment, the maintenance, the growing cost of veteran care, the recruitment, etc) and how much of it was the result of the GWB wall street bailout, the GM buyout, the affordable care act, social services deficits, etc. etc. etc.

Magico Gonzalez

Eric Cartman wrote: »

two of the silliest things Ive heard all day.

I would rather anyone but hillary , that said her going more left just makes her less and less attractive to on the fence voters. America doesn't like left.

If Trump actually did win the Republican primaries, the election would be a penalty kick for Clinton. Handing over the Latino vote to the Democrats wasn't the wisest move. Carson is plain crazy and would be hung out to dry over some of the weird statements he has made, especiallly around mass shootings.

Jeb Bush is the most electable, but he has to win over the lunatic fringe and get the candidacy first.

Overheal

Based on what I've heard from Jeb! lately, not much chance of that. '9 Benghazi hearings because Clinton needs to be held accountable for 4 dead Americans; how dare you think his brother should bear any blame for 9/11 in spite of the warning signs [which only got 1 committee investigation, and it glazed over WTC7].'

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

And what is that debt made up of? I tried looking this up the other night but had not much luck, you can find out on a infochart reminiscent of tiramisu which countries we owe money to, but you can't find much digestable data that might otherwise show what portion of that extra $8 trillion was the result of 2 foreign wars (the deployment, the maintenance, the growing cost of veteran care, the recruitment, etc) and how much of it was the result of the GWB wall street bailout, the GM buyout, the affordable care act, social services deficits, etc. etc. etc.

I thought Obama wound down those wars? As for the other things you noted, good luck anyone finding out what the $8 Trillion is composed of. I believe the Administration purposely keep the details hidden from the public. But one of your questions can be answered... GWB's portion of the bailouts was $700 Billion in 2008, and therefore not in the $8 Trillion number I noted.

Thargor

Amerika wrote: »

I was wrong on the $9 Trillion. On Jan. 20, 2009 (the day Obama took office), the total federal debt was $10,626 Trillion. It currently sits at $18,412 Trillion. Only around $8 Trillion so far added under Obama, but since there move than a year to go in his reign, the $9 Trillion number isn't far fetched.

He came into office with two trillion dollar wars raging and all the drag on the economy that diverted investment will bring (and dont claim it was good for the defense industry, compared to investing it in R&D/Education or infrastructure it was money pissed up the wall). Dont forget the Bush tax cuts didn't give a crap about who was in office either, they carried on adding trillions to the deficit long after he'd left the White House.

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

I thought Obama wound down those wars? As for the other things you noted, good luck anyone finding out what the $8 Trillion is composed of. I believe the Administration purposely keep the details hidden from the public. But one of your questions can be answered... GWB's portion of the bailouts was $700 Billion in 2008, and therefore not in the $8 Trillion number I noted.

See, even when you wind down the war you don't ignore the basic cost of the war's aftermath. Cheney Rove and Bush cowboy'd us into the war without really funding the war. It's so easy to say "It's all these damn entitlements fault!" when things like social security fund themselves..

Let's also look at the fact that, even though you or someone you know might have only served 2 tours in Afghanistan, all of these vets are still going to take advantage of their retirement benefits, veterans care, and the GI Bill (which is a pain in the ass for 3rd level education because the GI Bill is the loophole through which colleges just ask for and get more money ostensibly through the government which is paid back for by students at a higher rate than most mortgages). And because we decided that aggressive recruitment was essential for our preferred tactics like "Shock and Awe" and "The Surge," it means that we have a relatively unsustainable number of people drawing from those military benefits now. None of which you should really be cutting, mind you, but they are still things we are stuck paying for now (many of whom got in on waivers for misdemeanors, which contributes to an explanation the surge of questionably bad cops in the country with former military training). Thanks, GOP. So what could a rational person do but draw down these wars to curtail the spiraling costs? How could you not seriously consider shutting down troubled projects like the F-22 which was earmarked across 40 states so the republicans could claim job growth. I'm going to stop ranting now.

Eric Cartman

Magico Gonzalez wrote: »

If Trump actually did win the Republican primaries, the election would be a penalty kick for Clinton. Handing over the Latino vote to the Democrats wasn't the wisest move. Carson is plain crazy and would be hung out to dry over some of the weird statements he has made, especiallly around mass shootings.

Jeb Bush is the most electable, but he has to win over the lunatic fringe and get the candidacy first.

were still not at super tuesday though, a lot can change quickly. What I think the republicans have going for them is :

* dems have never done 3 in a row
* Hilary has flip-flopped on a damn lot of issues in her time - gay marriage being a big one. People don't forget
* The benghazi scandal, the email scandal
* She isn't even that well liked inside the dem camp.

I personally think sanders might get the nod, he's not there in the polls but his campaign train is steaming along far faster than hillary.

Now that said I don't think sanders would win, he's too left for centrist dem's, he's easily defeated on economics by the republicans , the people on the fence tend to prefer centrist candidates and I think sanders is too left for most of them.

Now on the republican side you have slight issues, bush has a family image issue but overall is quite moderate. I think trump will be gone after super tuesday but some of his economic policies may get absorbed by some others on the right. Fiorina I think still can't be discounted, she climbed out of the kiddy leagues pretty quick in this campaign. Carson might be a bit mad but he's not Ted Cruz hardline right and he could easily mop up the hispanic and black vote.

I still think its wide open on the republican side but I think the dem's will only win by republican fault rather than having the best candidates in this race.

Skylinehead

Eric Cartman wrote: »

dems have never done 3 in a row

FDR says hi, and Truman won the one after that (which is 5 in a row).

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Overheal

I thought FDR served 4 terms?

Skylinehead

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

If anyone saw this pre-edit, I completely read your post wrong :pac:

Roosevelt won 4 terms, died very soon into the last one.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Brian?

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

So we're agreed, the statement that the "Dems have never won 3 in a row" is factually incorrect?

Brian?

3 in a row is pretty rare for both parties as far as I can see. It would be pretty historic if the first African American POTUS handed over to the first woman. Making a former president FHOTUS?

Overheal

FMOTUS.

Brian?

Overheal wrote: »

FMOTUS.

Doesn't exactly roll off the tongue.

Overheal

Something something tongue Lewinsky joke.