+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: Lounge (/forum-564.html)
+---- Forum: The Kyra Memorial Spin Room (/forum-540.html)
+---- Thread: Official Democrat debate thread. (/thread-769351.html)
Pages: 1 2
Official Democrat debate thread. - Fo Shizzle - 02-04-2016 09:30 PM
I lasted a total of 5 minutes.
RE: Official Democrat debate thread. - Ole Blue - 02-04-2016 11:49 PM
Hillary got booed! It happened! THANK GOD! If there were a debate in TN and I went, I would be sure to boo her too for almost everything she says.
RE: Official Democrat debate thread. - Ole Blue - 02-04-2016 11:58 PM
Hillary: I'm not bought and paid for by corporate interests!!!
DNC Debate - Hill brings a Goldman Sachs lobbyist with her to the debate.
lmfao does she think America is stupid? You're just bringing them along so they can see how you're going to stand up for the middle class? My ass, you are. They care about Goldman Sachs and they know what you're saying is BS.
RE: Official Democrat debate thread. - DogPoundNorth - 02-05-2016 12:00 AM
(02-04-2016 11:58 PM)Ole Blue Wrote: Hillary: I'm not bought and paid for by corporate interests!!!
DNC Debate - Hill brings a Goldman Sachs lobbyist with her to the debate.
lmfao does she think America is stupid? You're just bringing them along so they can see how you're going to stand up for the middle class? My ass, you are. They care about Goldman Sachs and they know what you're saying is BS.
I mean, trump is leading polls to be the president of the united states....so maybe. Also, our test scores are garbage and most people are morons. I get it. But, she still sucks.
RE: Official Democrat debate thread. - Ole Blue - 02-05-2016 12:02 AM
(02-05-2016 12:00 AM)DogPoundNorth Wrote:(02-04-2016 11:58 PM)Ole Blue Wrote: Hillary: I'm not bought and paid for by corporate interests!!!
DNC Debate - Hill brings a Goldman Sachs lobbyist with her to the debate.
lmfao does she think America is stupid? You're just bringing them along so they can see how you're going to stand up for the middle class? My ass, you are. They care about Goldman Sachs and they know what you're saying is BS.
I mean, trump is leading polls to be the president of the united states....so maybe. Also, our test scores are garbage and most people are morons. I get it. But, she still sucks.
Everything you said is true. She does think America is stupid. Trump is a total wack job and Hillary is still up in the Democratic race so who knows.
RE: Official Democrat debate thread. - CardFan1 - 02-05-2016 05:55 AM
![[Image: maxresdefault.jpg]](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Idi-qjWUbaQ/maxresdefault.jpg)
![[Image: Chipmunk3.jpg]](http://www.rantpets.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Chipmunk3.jpg)
Chubby Chipmonk Cheeks
RE: Official Democrat debate thread. - Fort Bend Owl - 02-05-2016 06:43 AM
First of all, this debate was on a Thursday (and the next Republican debate is on a Saturday). Secondly, NBC did go after both candidates and absolutely did not throw softballs at them.
But at the same time, 6 posts and not very many page views in this thread is a pretty good indication very few people who come to this board will be voting for either candidate (although that may not be big news either).
RE: Official Democrat debate thread. - firmbizzle - 02-05-2016 07:20 AM
She was extremely cocky. Can't believe that she brought a Goldman Sachs lobbyist. Clueless.
RE: Official Democrat debate thread. - Owl 69/70/75 - 02-05-2016 07:25 AM
(02-05-2016 06:43 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote: NBC did go after both candidates and absolutely did not throw softballs at them.
What do you think were the two or three hardest-hitting questions that they asked each candidate?
RE: Official Democrat debate thread. - CardFan1 - 02-05-2016 07:46 AM
(02-05-2016 07:25 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:(02-05-2016 06:43 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote: NBC did go after both candidates and absolutely did not throw softballs at them.
What do you think were the two or three hardest-hitting questions that they asked each candidate?
What brand of Laxatives do You take ? Can You type 55 WPM ? Have You ever thought about what it would be like to actually have a job where the Government pays for Your vacations ?
RE: Official Democrat debate thread. - firmbizzle - 02-05-2016 07:46 AM
Also stunning when Bernie said that Wall st is a fraud.
RE: Official Democrat debate thread. - Fort Bend Owl - 02-05-2016 08:43 AM
(02-05-2016 07:25 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:(02-05-2016 06:43 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote: NBC did go after both candidates and absolutely did not throw softballs at them.
What do you think were the two or three hardest-hitting questions that they asked each candidate?
These were parts of specific questions (edited for brevity)
To Sanders - How can you lead the Democratic Party nationally when you have not been a member of the Democratic Party until very recently?
To Clinton - Last night, when you were asked about speaking fees and the amount of speaking fees you got from Goldman Sachs speeches, you said that’s what they offered.
Have you been too dismissive of voters’ concerns about this issue in your own campaign and your own career?
To Sanders - Nobody knows who your foreign policy advisers are. You haven’t given a major foreign policy speech. And it doesn’t sound like all the time that foreign policy is a priority, other than when you’re asked about it, and you say you’re going to crush ISIS, as you said last night and earlier.
You have not proactively laid out a foreign policy doctrine yet. Why?
They also had a bunch of questions laid out there easily where Sanders could directly attack Clinton and vice-versa.
(full transcript here if you want to read it for yourself)
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/05/us/politics/transcript-of-the-democratic-presidential-debate.html?_r=0
RE: Official Democrat debate thread. - Owl 69/70/75 - 02-05-2016 08:57 AM
(02-05-2016 08:43 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:(02-05-2016 07:25 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:These were parts of specific questions (edited for brevity)(02-05-2016 06:43 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote: NBC did go after both candidates and absolutely did not throw softballs at them.What do you think were the two or three hardest-hitting questions that they asked each candidate?
To Sanders - How can you lead the Democratic Party nationally when you have not been a member of the Democratic Party until very recently?
To Clinton - Last night, when you were asked about speaking fees and the amount of speaking fees you got from Goldman Sachs speeches, you said that’s what they offered.
Have you been too dismissive of voters’ concerns about this issue in your own campaign and your own career?
To Sanders - Nobody knows who your foreign policy advisers are. You haven’t given a major foreign policy speech. And it doesn’t sound like all the time that foreign policy is a priority, other than when you’re asked about it, and you say you’re going to crush ISIS, as you said last night and earlier.
You have not proactively laid out a foreign policy doctrine yet. Why?
They also had a bunch of questions laid out there easily where Sanders could directly attack Clinton and vice-versa.
(full transcript here if you want to read it for yourself)
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/05/us/politics/transcript-of-the-democratic-presidential-debate.html?_r=0
Maybe it's a difference in perception, but I don't see those as particularly hard-hitting.
There are reasons why I would not vote for either one of them. None of those questions addressed any of those reasons. Questions about the reasons why I would not vote for them would strike me as hard-hitting. These do not.
RE: Official Democrat debate thread. - QuestionSocratic - 02-05-2016 09:12 AM
Didn't watch but did Rachel cop a feel off of the Hill?
RE: Official Democrat debate thread. - firmbizzle - 02-05-2016 10:03 AM
I like Trump and Sanders. Neither are bought.
RE: Official Democrat debate thread. - Crebman - 02-05-2016 10:27 AM
(02-05-2016 12:02 AM)Ole Blue Wrote:(02-05-2016 12:00 AM)DogPoundNorth Wrote:(02-04-2016 11:58 PM)Ole Blue Wrote: Hillary: I'm not bought and paid for by corporate interests!!!
DNC Debate - Hill brings a Goldman Sachs lobbyist with her to the debate.
lmfao does she think America is stupid? You're just bringing them along so they can see how you're going to stand up for the middle class? My ass, you are. They care about Goldman Sachs and they know what you're saying is BS.
I mean, trump is leading polls to be the president of the united states....so maybe. Also, our test scores are garbage and most people are morons. I get it. But, she still sucks.
Everything you said is true. She does think America is stupid. Trump is a total wack job and Hillary is still up in the Democratic race so who knows.
I think Hillary is a total sleazebag, but America can be pretty stupid.........ah, not always stupid but generally ignorant, as in - too much effort to know who is a senator of the state you live in ignorant........ or Obama when elected is going to take care of my mortgage ignorant.
RE: Official Democrat debate thread. - shiftyeagle - 02-05-2016 10:28 AM
Did Bernie mention billionaires?
RE: Official Democrat debate thread. - firmbizzle - 02-05-2016 10:34 AM
(02-05-2016 10:28 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote: Did Bernie mention billionaires?
Yes and trillionaires.
![[Image: giphy.gif]](https://media.giphy.com/media/1O7eC1JrSudsQ/giphy.gif)
RE: Official Democrat debate thread. - CardFan1 - 02-05-2016 10:41 AM
Those two phony Clowns have been around the horn so many times . They know exactly the right amount of B.S. Folks want to hear about Rich vs Poor and even still under Their Chosen leader, Obama, the Poor are still the Poor. Always will be unless They hit a lottery, Then They find out after taxes eat Them up, They are just above Poor. But They have "Hope"
RE: Official Democrat debate thread. - Owl 69/70/75 - 02-05-2016 11:11 PM
(02-05-2016 08:57 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:(02-05-2016 08:43 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:Maybe it's a difference in perception, but I don't see those as particularly hard-hitting.(02-05-2016 07:25 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:These were parts of specific questions (edited for brevity)(02-05-2016 06:43 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote: NBC did go after both candidates and absolutely did not throw softballs at them.What do you think were the two or three hardest-hitting questions that they asked each candidate?
To Sanders - How can you lead the Democratic Party nationally when you have not been a member of the Democratic Party until very recently?
To Clinton - Last night, when you were asked about speaking fees and the amount of speaking fees you got from Goldman Sachs speeches, you said that’s what they offered.
Have you been too dismissive of voters’ concerns about this issue in your own campaign and your own career?
To Sanders - Nobody knows who your foreign policy advisers are. You haven’t given a major foreign policy speech. And it doesn’t sound like all the time that foreign policy is a priority, other than when you’re asked about it, and you say you’re going to crush ISIS, as you said last night and earlier.
You have not proactively laid out a foreign policy doctrine yet. Why?
They also had a bunch of questions laid out there easily where Sanders could directly attack Clinton and vice-versa.
(full transcript here if you want to read it for yourself)
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/05/us/politics/transcript-of-the-democratic-presidential-debate.html?_r=0
There are reasons why I would not vote for either one of them. None of those questions addressed any of those reasons. Questions about the reasons why I would not vote for them would strike me as hard-hitting. These do not.
For the record, these would be what I would consider hard-hitting questions:
For Bernie:
1. You have been self-described socialist for a long time, and now you are describing yourself as a democratic socialist. How would you differentiate between communists, socialists, democratic socialists, and democrats? And in which group would you say that you belong?
2. You have proposed an additional $18 trillion in spending over 10 years, and you have proposed to pay for a substantial portion of that cost with a new tax on financial transactions. How do you expect the investment community to respond? Specifically, why would they not simply move those transactions to another jurisdiction--say, the Dubai Exchange--where they would not be subject to the tax? How do you propose to prevent that? How do you propose to pay for your programs if you cannot prevent that?
3. Margaret Thatcher reportedly said, "The problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people's money." If your proposals were enacted, the highest individual tax bracket would be higher than Scandinavian countries, and the corporate tax rate would be more than twice the rates in Scandinavian countries. How do you plan to keep the "rich" and corporations here and paying those taxes? Where do you get the money when they leave?
4. Won't your proposals ultimately require that every American pay significantly higher taxes?
For Hillary:
1. How much of a briefing or training did you attend when you got your security clearance, before you were entrusted with any actual classified information? How extensive were the briefings or training on the same subject that your staff attended? Did you understand that the purpose of security laws and regulations is to protect information that could negatively affect our national security by preventing reckless and irresponsible handling of such information?
2. Why did you tell the families of the Benghazi victims that the cause was a video and that we would get the person who made the video?
3. Did you participate in the decision to send Susan Rice to talk to the news interview shows after Benghazi? Was she chosen because she had a title that made her sound like someone who might be able to speak with authority on the subject, but in fact her position meant that she had no actual knowledge, so she could retain deniability later?
For Both:
1. You keep decrying the capital flight that takes jobs and investment away from the US to obtain lower costs, lower taxes, and less intrusive regulations. Your proposals to address the situation consist of higher costs, higher taxes, and more intrusive regulation. Why do you think your proposals will accomplish anything other than greater capital flight? How do you expect businesses and investors to react when you impose your program? Why? What will you do if they do not react the way that you want them to react?
2. Suppose I am an entrepreneur/investor who has a new product that I intend to market worldwide, and I am preparing to spend $100 million to build a factory that will employ 3,000 people to make that product. Why should I put that factory in the US if your proposals are enacted? What are you prepared to promise me in order to get me to put it here? If you cannot convince me to put it here, and you can't convince others similarly situated to invest here, exactly how do you propose to maintain an economy here?
3. If you have a new business that you expect to generate $100 million a year in pre-tax profits, would you rather launch it in the US and pay 40% tax on the profits, or launch it somewhere else and pay 12-30% tax on the profits? If here, why? If not here, what does that imply for your economic proposals?
I'd be interested in their answers to those questions.