Comments on: Who Won The Democratic Debate of 17 January 2016?

By: Randy

Randy — Thu, 21 Jan 2016 02:00:21 +0000

I agree that these “debates” aren’t really debates, but that term is easier to use than, “The TV shows where the political candidates stand, in a line, on a stage, and answer dumb questions from mainstream media pundits during election years”. Whew. I also don’t watch debates, but I will go on-line the next day and see what people are saying and writing. That’s what I’m really interested in…. what other people are saying about said debates. On caucus night, I will be standing in the group that supports Bernie. I’ve sent him money on a couple of different occasions. I’ve got a “Bernie” cap. I’ve read the Banking Act of 1933. I spent 2 years studying fiscal and monetary policy/operations of sovereign countries (after I retired). Hillary is a moderate Republican but I will vote for her in the general election if I must. I’m still waiting for my old friend, FDR.

By: Desertphile

Desertphile — Wed, 20 Jan 2016 18:03:27 +0000

Me: “I deny the hypothesis.”

Greg Laden: “Which hypothesis?”

I deny the hypothesis that political debates are “won” or “lost.” I deny there is a valid metric for “win” and “lose.” I also deny the hypothesis that these “debates” have been debates.”

By: Brainstorms

Brainstorms — Wed, 20 Jan 2016 18:01:50 +0000

That’s what the right has been doing. They use the tactics of gerrymandering, voter ID laws, poll taxes, disinformation campaigns, etc. All in order to remove political parties (other than their own).

With the competition removed, you’ve effectively removed political parties. What is left is the be-all, end-all facsist government that will tell you what to think and what to do. (Don’t worry; once sufficiently powerful, they’ll amend the Constitution so that it says whatever they need it to say…)

Oh, and “there’s no going back”. It took a world war the last time that type of party took over a nation, and that nation was literally reduced to rubble with a destroyed economy to go with, in order to excise the “problem”.

I really hope that America turns away from that path… But those who are ignorant of history are bound to… ::sigh::

By: Desertphile

Desertphile — Wed, 20 Jan 2016 17:55:46 +0000

In reply to Brainstorms.

Brainstorms: What? Are you worried she’s a “sleeper agent” for the Kochroaches?

America is over a barrel this year: It’s either:

A. Vote a Democrat —any Democrat– into office,
or
B. Begin the morbid descent into political, social, and economic apotosis on a national scale.

How the hell did we ever get into this vulnerable state?

Oh wait… How do spell gerrymandering?

The best solution is to ban political parties. The USA Constitution mandates that USA citizens have the right to assemble, so the Constitution would have to be amended to ban political parties.

By: Brainstorms

Brainstorms — Wed, 20 Jan 2016 02:14:00 +0000

What? Are you worried she’s a “sleeper agent” for the Kochroaches?

America is over a barrel this year: It’s either:

A. Vote a Democrat —any Democrat– into office,
or
B. Begin the morbid descent into political, social, and economic apotosis on a national scale.

How the hell did we ever get into this vulnerable state?

Oh wait… How do spell gerrymandering?

By: Douglas C Alder

Douglas C Alder — Wed, 20 Jan 2016 02:03:07 +0000

The problem, as I see it, Greg, is you seem to think Hillary actually means anything she says. That’s a very risky position.

By: See Noevo

See Noevo — Tue, 19 Jan 2016 17:19:29 +0000

I submitted two comments yesterday (Monday) and both are still awaiting moderation for some reason.

By: The Donal

The Donal — Tue, 19 Jan 2016 14:39:42 +0000

I stayed up to watch the debate. Some of the questioning was moronic. The media virtually ignored Sanders until Larry David did his spot on SNL parody, but now they seem to be noticing his poll numbers.
Sanders began to get bogged down early on one question, but you could almost see the wheels turn, and he pivoted to invoking the bigger picture of a government bought by campaign money. After that he never failed to emphasize that his brand is revolution. Hillary was steadfastly trying to be the experienced adult in the room. O’Malley handled a question about whether his harsh policies led to the death of Freddie Gray by claiming that tough policies were necessary when he took office because so many people were getting killed every day. I found the ‘who is more antigun?’ debate disingenuous. O’Malley and Clinton clamped down on guns in major urban areas where white people are nervous about armed black people. Sanders is in a largely rural, largely white state where ‘shall issue’ doesn’t bother anyone.
I do have boomer-age friends who are angry at Hillary. On facebook, I have regularly seen accusations that Debbie Wasserman-Schulz was trying to fix the primary for Clinton. Then there was the firewall kerfluffle. And Chelsea.

By: cosmicomics

cosmicomics — Tue, 19 Jan 2016 09:58:38 +0000

http://climatefeedback.org/how-much-do-the-us-presidential-candidates-know-about-climate-change/

By: dean

dean — Mon, 18 Jan 2016 22:18:49 +0000

“the birther issue …continues”

Only among the foolish.