Democrat Presidential Debate

[HoonDing]

it sure works for the 1%

[BruceVC]

it sure works for the 1%

You cant possibly believe that, it works for almost all countries who understand the principles of the private sector managing the growth of the economy and the free markets 

 

Yes there are some failures but I have come to accept that and not let that detract from the overall value that it adds

[Leferd]

 

 

 

 

Nah, there is nothing weird about that. He is one of the most respected Political commentators in mainstream US media

The way I would phrase it, is he's one of the less terrible ones.

You guys and your cynicism...who do you like as a political commentator?

Generally speaking, not the media hacks from cable news shows, and especially political commentary shows.

 

Pretty much anything from PBS or NPR is solid though. MacNeil/Lehrer were dry back in the day but they weren't sensationalist. Gwen Ifill and Judy Woodruff follow the same sensibilities. Mark Shields and David Brooks are respected and insightful.

 

The same can be said about All Things Considered on NPR with Robert Siegel, Melissa Block, and Audie Cornish --as well as Marketplace with Kai Ryssdal.

[Calax]

I think the difference between the two Clintons ultimately comes down to the fact that President Clinton has the same experience as a political Operator as Hill, but the guy's not aiming for a popularity vote anymore. Hillary, on the other hand is fighting so hard with the popular vote that she can't or won't be totally unfiltered in the name of getting as many votes. But she ends up seeming detached because everything she says seems to be run through a machine. The few times I've seen her caught off guard (The Black Lives Matter stuff, and a few moments in the debate) she seems like she knows how to run this thing and to get people to talk.

 

But her entire political machine is built around preventing those moments.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

If we're defining capitalism as "an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth." how is Hillary not a Capitalist?

 

 

How is any sane person not a Capitalist under that broad definition?

They weren't blessed with ownership of production or distribution.

[BruceVC]

 

 

If we're defining capitalism as "an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth." how is Hillary not a Capitalist?

 

How is any sane person not a Capitalist under that broad definition?

They weren't blessed with ownership of production or distribution.

 

Thats just an excuse to not work hard and achieve something meaningful....yes KP no one is going to give you wealth or success , you will have to do it yourself 

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

 

 

If we're defining capitalism as "an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth." how is Hillary not a Capitalist?

 

 

How is any sane person not a Capitalist under that broad definition?

They weren't blessed with ownership of production or distribution.

Thats just an excuse to not work hard and achieve something meaningful....yes KP no one is going to give you wealth or success , you will have to do it yourself

I'm glad to know that working 40 hours a week while taking care of my sick mother and going to university isn't working hard.

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

 

If we're defining capitalism as "an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth." how is Hillary not a Capitalist?

 

How is any sane person not a Capitalist under that broad definition?

They weren't blessed with ownership of production or distribution.

Thats just an excuse to not work hard and achieve something meaningful....yes KP no one is going to give you wealth or success , you will have to do it yourself

I'm glad to know that working 40 hours a week while taking care of my sick mother and going to university isn't working hard.

 

Okay, I apologize. I didn't mean it like that, besides I am very confident you will become very successful if thats what you want

 

But yes I do understand your RL commitments and I respect what you are doing, I was not  working as hard as you at your age and I do realize you are very busy 

[Meshugger]

Everyone knows that working hard has zero to with it. You have to be smarter, driven, ambitious, brave and be able to rise again even when everything is against you, physically and mentally. 

[Gfted1]

Its not what you know, its who you know.

[BruceVC]

Everyone knows that working hard has zero to with it. You have to be smarter, driven, ambitious, brave and be able to rise again even when everything is against you, physically and mentally. 

That sounds like something you read in a Chinese fortune cookie  

 

But yes you need those things and you have to work hard 

[Guard Dog]

 

 

 

I finally got around to reading CNN's gushing reviews of Hillary's performance. They don't call that the Clinton News Network for nothing,

Well CNN International is very objective, they feature the Republicans and Trump quite regularly 

 

CNN is objective? I laughed so hard I spit up my coffee! They are not as bad as MSNBC (they make no pretense of objectivity) but I'd hardly call them objective. You know what news source it completely politically neutral in the US? None of them. That's correct. Not a f-----g one of them. All of them tilt to one political philosophy or another either subtly of overtly.

 

But I wouldn't worry about it overmuch. That isn't new. It's been that way since before the last civil war.

 

You sure you weren't watching the local USA CNN....thats very different to CNN International ?

 

Sorry Bruce, I didn't notice you said "international" CNN. I have seldom paid it much attention but since it is a Turner enterprise and he is a big democrat supporter I'd be surprised if it really were "fair". But I don't know.

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

 

I finally got around to reading CNN's gushing reviews of Hillary's performance. They don't call that the Clinton News Network for nothing,

Well CNN International is very objective, they feature the Republicans and Trump quite regularly 

 

CNN is objective? I laughed so hard I spit up my coffee! They are not as bad as MSNBC (they make no pretense of objectivity) but I'd hardly call them objective. You know what news source it completely politically neutral in the US? None of them. That's correct. Not a f-----g one of them. All of them tilt to one political philosophy or another either subtly of overtly.

 

But I wouldn't worry about it overmuch. That isn't new. It's been that way since before the last civil war.

 

You sure you weren't watching the local USA CNN....thats very different to CNN International ?

 

Sorry Bruce, I didn't notice you said "international" CNN. I have seldom paid it much attention but since it is a Turner enterprise and he is a big democrat supporter I'd be surprised if it really were "fair". But I don't know.

 

Yeah you will be surprised but there is a difference, I have seen the local USA CNN and I found it a little ...cringe worthy..the presenters and anchors annoyed me for some reason

 

The International CNN is really good and they often interview Trump as he likes this one anchor, Chris Cuomo, so Trump always gives him time and responds to his questions 

[Hurlshort]

Everyone knows that working hard has zero to with it. You have to be smarter, driven, ambitious, brave and be able to rise again even when everything is against you, physically and mentally. 

 

I'm pretty sure ambition, drive, and bravery are by-products of hard work.  Also I've known a lot of lazy smart people and they don't get very far in life. 

[Meshugger]

 

Everyone knows that working hard has zero to with it. You have to be smarter, driven, ambitious, brave and be able to rise again even when everything is against you, physically and mentally. 

 

I'm pretty sure ambition, drive, and bravery are by-products of hard work.  Also I've known a lot of lazy smart people and they don't get very far in life. 

 

 

On the contrary, I have met hard working farmers and nurses that haven't gotten anywhere in life. The amount of labour they simple put in is ridiculous, but they have gotten nowhere due to, in the first case, having bad weather and falling market prices due to stiff competition and in the case of the second one it is due to market saturation and union deals leading to stagnation in wages. You have to have the brains to work around the system, you have to brave enough to dare to fail if so happens and you have to have the drive to succeed.

[Barothmuk]

*Zizek reaction face*

[Meshugger]

*Zizek reaction face*

 

[Guard Dog]

Jim Webb is considering an independent run. Either he is a fan of wasting other people money on Quixotic causes or he is seriously deluded about his chances. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/jim-webb-to-consider-independent-presidential-bid/

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Jim Webb is considering an independent run. Either he is a fan of wasting other people money on Quixotic causes or he is seriously deluded about his chances. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/jim-webb-to-consider-independent-presidential-bid/

I hear Lincoln Chafee is doing the same. He says it's his first time and his father just died.

[Hurlshort]

At least Jim Webb got Alec Baldwin as his impersonator for SNL.  That's a pretty good pull.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Makes sense since he's no longer either Republican or Democrat, but down the middle where supposedly most of the votes are.

[Hurlshort]

Makes sense since he's no longer either Republican or Democrat, but down the middle where supposedly most of the votes are.

 

At this point, I'm probably voting for someone outside of the parties myself.  Unfortunately most folks will just blindly for red or blue, regardless of who wins the primary.  It would be astonishing if people decided to flee the two party system in droves.

[Rostere]

 

Makes sense since he's no longer either Republican or Democrat, but down the middle where supposedly most of the votes are.

 

At this point, I'm probably voting for someone outside of the parties myself.  Unfortunately most folks will just blindly for red or blue, regardless of who wins the primary.  It would be astonishing if people decided to flee the two party system in droves.

 

But the fact that people basically vote for two parties is only due to the electoral systems used, where the "winner takes it all" (and in the case of a presidential election, you can only have one winner, but you could for example have transferrable votes...). There is no point in voting for a third, smaller party, because you're only taking away votes from the one of the two big sides you're closest to. That is, if you feel it doesn't matter which of the big sides win you could of course vote for a third party. Sadly, this will likely not result in you getting any representation at all for your opinions.

 

You should really not call it two-party system, but "simple plurality FPTP" which is the actual system making people vote for two parties only.

[Meshugger]

 

 

Makes sense since he's no longer either Republican or Democrat, but down the middle where supposedly most of the votes are.

 

At this point, I'm probably voting for someone outside of the parties myself.  Unfortunately most folks will just blindly for red or blue, regardless of who wins the primary.  It would be astonishing if people decided to flee the two party system in droves.

 

But the fact that people basically vote for two parties is only due to the electoral systems used, where the "winner takes it all" (and in the case of a presidential election, you can only have one winner, but you could for example have transferrable votes...). There is no point in voting for a third, smaller party, because you're only taking away votes from the one of the two big sides you're closest to. That is, if you feel it doesn't matter which of the big sides win you could of course vote for a third party. Sadly, this will likely not result in you getting any representation at all for your opinions.

 

You should really not call it two-party system, but "simple plurality FPTP" which is the actual system making people vote for two parties only.

 

 

Compared to our superior scando-system, where everyone is invited to take part in the concensus, the anglos in UK and US have zero tolerance for giving people who do not win in a winner takes it all-environment any political power.

 

You just need to convince them that being a loser is ok.

[Elerond]

 

 

 

Makes sense since he's no longer either Republican or Democrat, but down the middle where supposedly most of the votes are.

 

At this point, I'm probably voting for someone outside of the parties myself.  Unfortunately most folks will just blindly for red or blue, regardless of who wins the primary.  It would be astonishing if people decided to flee the two party system in droves.

 

But the fact that people basically vote for two parties is only due to the electoral systems used, where the "winner takes it all" (and in the case of a presidential election, you can only have one winner, but you could for example have transferrable votes...). There is no point in voting for a third, smaller party, because you're only taking away votes from the one of the two big sides you're closest to. That is, if you feel it doesn't matter which of the big sides win you could of course vote for a third party. Sadly, this will likely not result in you getting any representation at all for your opinions.

 

You should really not call it two-party system, but "simple plurality FPTP" which is the actual system making people vote for two parties only.

 

 

Compared to our superior scando-system, where everyone is invited to take part in the concensus, the anglos in UK and US have zero tolerance for giving people who do not win in a winner takes it all-environment any political power.

 

You just need to convince them that being a loser is ok.

 

 

But at least US has system in presidential elections where one can be winner even if they don't get majority of popular votes. So all is not lost for non-popular kids