Reply With Quote
> Democrats Foreign Policy
> Republicans Domestic Policy
the CNN Repug debate was a joke, silliness, adolescent, unserious bull from assholes who don't GAF about govt or governing.
the CNN Dem debate was serious people being serious.
> Democrats Foreign Policy
> Republicans Domestic Policy
He may not be back either. I love how he used so much of his time to complain about not getting enough time to speak.
What's with Hillary's constant "I won't take a back seat..."? Seems to me that CNN put her in the driver's seat.
It's racist if you ask me, but I'm going to take the high road in the spirit of Donald Trump. Not gonna be overly PC.
Did the fact that CNN set it up to be like that just go completely over your head?
Cooper red-baited Bernie Sanders with deceptive Soviet honeymoon claim
In his follow-up question to Bernie Sanders Tuesday night after the candidate had explained what he views as democratic socialism, CNN's Anderson Cooper returned to the matter of electability and noted, "You honeymooned in the Soviet Union."This de able red-baiting was a means of suggesting that Sanders is a commie without actually saying the word. Here's a guy, the implication runs, who's a secret Bolshevik, so in love with America's arch-enemy that he took his new bride to the U.S.S.R. instead of Niagara Falls or the Bahamas for their honeymoon.
A rancid attempt to gin up outrage and do Republican dirty work for them.
The honeymoon story began at Breitbart in late May, then moved on to other right-wing venues, finally getting play in George Will's Aug. 7 column in The Washington Post.
Most of his column was devoted to praise for ex-communist Robert Conquest, who had written about the prisons and other atrocities of the Stalin era and had just died at age 98. Will concluded:
"Conquest lived to see a current U.S. presidential candidate, a senator, who had chosen, surely as an ideological gesture, to spend his honeymoon in the Soviet Union in 1988. Gulags still functioned, probably including some of the ‘cold Auschwitzes’ in Siberia, described in Conquest’s ‘Kolyma.’ The honeymooner did not mind that in 1988 political prisoners were—as may still be the case—being tortured in psychiatric ‘hospitals.’ Thanks to the unblinking honesty of people like Conquest, the Soviet Union now is such a receding memory that Bernie Sanders’s moral obtuseness—the obverse of Conquest’s character—is considered an amusing eccentricity."
Will, of course, is a decidedly unamusing eccentricity. His "surely as an ideological gesture" implied—given the context of the rest of the column—that Sanders is a sneaky supporter of gulags and politically motivated famines and other stalinist depredations. In fact, Sanders' trip to the Soviet Union was official duty as mayor of Burlington, Vermont.You can read the more below the fold.
In 1956, President Eisenhower launched the program that a decade later would be called Sister Cities International, a program still in existence today. The idea was to promote peace and understanding through connections between cities in the United States and, at first, Western Europe. The program soon spread. In 1973, Seattle became a sister city of Tashkent, the capital of Uzbekistan, then under Soviet rule. Other U.S.-Soviet sister cities soon followed despite the tensions of the Cold War.
In 1988, Burlington sistered with Yaroslavl, a city 160 miles north of Moscow. That was the same year Sanders married his second wife, Jane. In fact, the day after they married, they headed out to Yaroslavl. So, one could call it a honeymoon, and the pair have both done so, but jokingly or sarcastically.
The reason for that is that they didn't go alone. There were 10 other people from Burlington who went with them. It was a trip dotted with diplomacy, official meetings and numerous interviews. Not most people's idea of a honeymoon getaway.
As the Tampa Bay Times Pundit Fact feature reported:
In a 2007 interview, Jane Sanders also recalled the peculiar timing: "The day after we got married, we marched in a Memorial Day parade, and then we took off in a plane to start the sister city project with Yaroslavl with 10 other people on my honeymoon."[...]Will made it sound as if Sanders was visiting to condone Soviet torture practices, but the Burlington trip was more of a dialogue-building exchange program. The Vermont weekly newspaper Seven Days reported in 2009 that the sister-city relationship "helped local residents who sought to ease tensions between the United States and Soviet Union by initiating citizen-to-citizen exchanges with a Russian city." [...]
Participation in the Burlington-Yaroslavl program has waned over the years, though it was viewed as a "glamorous endeavor" by many in Burlington at the time, program leader Howard Seaver said in 2009.
George Will is a hopeless case of arrested political development, stuck unbudgingly in a past era. But why did Anderson Cooper slip this sneak attack with its bogus implications into the early minutes of the first Democratic debate? Sloppy research? A bogus attempt to prove journalistic toughmindedness? Or malice aforethought?
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/1...m?detail=email
That's some really nasty slimy , AC.
Lol. Who are you voting for Bouton
Do you want to link to those many sources?
Webb was the only decent one on the issues, too bad he spent most of the debate ing about his speaking time and the rest stumbling over what he was saying. Still not as bad as Chafee.
No idea, tbh... I was just passing along what I heard. Difficult to take any "plan" seriously with the current Congress makeup, tbh
Why are CNN and even Faux reporting Shillary won/maintained lead in the Demo debate?
I thought she was canned and phony sounding. Not Slick Willyette at all.
Meh. She probably Won if you assume 'Email Questions' are now off the table.
Even her compe ion Bernie said the US public is sick and tired of Repug witch hunt bull .
Farks sake grill (continually Ben Gazi! - email style) The Donald about his casino loans and then claiming *bankruptcy* to weasel out of it.
The Repugs are the got party whom after 8 years of a blanced budget and good economy tried to run Slick Willy on a farking blow job charge.
Losers!
Bernie was shouting and then criticized others for raising their voices. Also conceded on Hillary's emails. Improved towards the end.
Chafee was a disaster
Webb spent a bunch of time complaining about speaking time.
O'Malley was meh.
Hillary may be phony/canned but that's how she has always been. She had some good zingers and even though she was the one getting attacked the most didn't really suffer any serious damage. I didn't like that she kept bringing up her gender.
I'm not a Dem and I'm not rooting for any of them so that was just my perspective. Personally I liked Webb the most because I agreed with a lot of what he said. Bernie is good at identifying problems but imo his solutions are atrocious. Hillary and O'Malley are bland. I felt bad for Chafee, he didn't belong on that stage.
I still good to see a solid blueprint/vision. It's easy to make promises. Also I don't think the Congress is as bad as it seems, I just don't think Obama does a good enough job of working with them. Bill mentioned the same thing and he had to deal with a contentious Congress as well. You can't expect to get everything you want when the opposition is in charge and then complain when it doesn't happen. There is a lot of common ground that they can work on but instead they save all of it as leverage (both sides are doing this right now).
she doesn't have a authentic bone in her body, without a single principle, totally scripted and fake. Even worse, she's in Wall St pocket and she's a neocon warrior.
that said, she's tons better than ANY Repug.
Sanders didn't do a good enough job prying Hillary.
people who think Hillary is a 'genuine people person that cares about my family
', one of the most programmed robotic out of touch with reality candidates I've seen, and I watched the GOP debate in full.
Hilarious when Hillary said the rich people were gonna be made to pay for <something>.
Like every conventional politician she's owned by BigFinance, which has made her and hubby quite wealthy.
Strong Debate Ratings Make CNN Consider Introducing Substance into Programming
NEW YORK — The strong ratings for Tuesday’s Democratic Presidential debate have surprised CNN executives, who are now tentatively considering introducing substance into their programming.
The president of CNN, Jeff Zucker, acknowledged that he was “baffled” by the high ratings for the debate, which focussed on the issues and featured few if any personal attacks.
“I was watching them talk about issue after issue, and I was like, ‘This show is gonna tank,’ ” Zucker said. “Substance is usually ratings poison.”
After reviewing the numbers for the debate, however, Zucker decided to launch a pilot program at CNN called Project Substance, which will introduce information and “substance-based content” into the network’s programming, on a limited basis.
“Just to be clear, we’re not suddenly going to flood our programming with substance,” Zucker said. “We know that would be jarring for our viewers.”
By implementing a “dash of substance here and there,” the network will be able to gauge whether viewers’ interest in substance is for real, “or just a passing fad,” Zucker said.
“If, at the end of the day, viewers aren’t interested in serious news, we’ll just go back to what we’ve been doing,” he said.
http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borow...NzgyMDY3MjYwS0
Hillary Clinton's Take on Banks Won't Hold Up
The Democratic frontrunner seems to be counting on America's ignorance about the 2008 crash
One of the most revealing exchanges in the Clinton-Sanders tilt involved the question of Wall Street corruption. Sanders has always been a passionate crusader against Wall Street perfidy, but Hillary's take on the subject was fascinating.
Asked about it Tuesday night, she gave an answer that to me sums up her candidacy and the conundrum of the modern Democratic Party in general. She seemed to hit a lot of correct notes, while at the same time over-thinking and over-nuancing a question where a few simple unequivocal answers would probably have won everyone over.
The key exchange began with a question from CNN's Anderson Cooper:
"Just for viewers at home who may not be reading up on this, Glass-Steagall is the Depression-era banking law repealed in 1999 that prevented commercial banks from engaging in investment banking and insurance activities. Secretary Clinton, he raises a fundamental difference on this stage. Sen. Sanders wants to break up the big Wall Street banks. You don't. You say charge the banks more, continue to monitor them. Why is your plan better?"
Backing up: When Bill Clinton took office, it was still illegal in the United States for commercial banks to merge with investment banks and insurance companies. But toward the end of Clinton's second term, he signed a bill called the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act that essentially created Too Big to Fail "supermarket" banks like Citigroup.
This isn't the only reason the financial system is so dangerous now. There's also the matter of the extreme interconnectedness of the financial services industry. This problem came violently into play in 2008, when the failure of a single idiot investment bank, Lehman Brothers, caused a chain reaction that nearly blew up the whole financial system.
This latter problem was partially a consequence of another Clinton-era law, the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which deregulated derivatives like swaps that were the agent of many of those chain-reaction losses.
So Cooper's question to Hillary Clinton was really about a financial system that became dangerously over-concentrated thanks to multiple laws passed during her husband's administration. Her answer:
"Well, my plan is more comprehensive. And, frankly, it's tougher because of course we have to deal with the problem that the banks are still too big to fail. We can never let the American taxpayer and middle-class families ever have to bail out the kind of speculative behavior that we saw. But we also have to worry about some of the other players: AIG, a big insurance company; Lehman Brothers, an investment bank. There's this whole area called 'shadow banking.' That's where the experts tell me the next potential problem could come from."
A few observations:
First, it's definitive now that Hillary has no intention of reinstating Glass-Steagall. Cooper gave her a prime opportunity Tuesday night to announce otherwise, stories have filtered out of her campaign that she has no plans along those lines, and she's explicitly stated that she wants to find a "different way" to reduce risk.
The second and probably more important observation is about Hillary's rhetorical choices.
Hillary, like her close advisor Barney Frank, has been pushing an idea that banks aren't at the root of any financial instability problem.
Last night, she pointed a finger instead at "shadow banking," non-bank actors like AIG, and a dead investment bank in Lehman Brothers. (Interesting she didn't mention a still-viable investment bank like Goldman, Sachs, which has hosted her expensive speaking engagements.)
This squeamishness about criticizing banks is laughable to people in the industry. But of course, that's probably the point – that the average voter won't know how absurd and desperate it is to point to faceless "shadow" financiers as villains when the real bad guys are famed mega-firms that are right out in the open, with their names plastered all over every second city block.
Companies like AIG and Lehman Brothers did, of course, shoulder blame for what took place in 2008. But there is no way to untangle what those non-bank actors did without also talking about the banks.
This stuff is all connected, and it's not really that hard.
The root of the 2008 crisis lay in a broad criminal fraud scheme, in which huge masses of home loans were given to people who couldn't afford them. Those loans in turn were bought back up by giant banks and resold to investors who weren't told how crappy the merchandise was.
AIG blew up because it insured this fraudulent market.
Lehman blew up because it overinvested in it.
But it was banks that financed the problem and that were possibly the most depraved actors in the narrative (apart, perhaps, from the Countrywide-style mortgage lenders who were handing loans out to anyone with a pulse).
We know this, among other things, because it was big banks like JPMorgan Chase and Citigroup that paid the biggest chunks of the $100 billion in fines Hillary later referenced in the debate. There is a vast record of do entary and witness evidence now attesting to the mass fraud, which was of a type that can and probably will happen again. The policy issue is how to curb the impact of that inevitable next crooked scheme.
By going out of her way to downplay the influence of bank corruption, Hillary is probably signaling that she doesn't plan on leaning into the reform effort all that much. This is consistent with her history as a politician who has accepted an enormous amount of money from Wall Street (both in donations and speaking fees) and has surrounded herself with policy advisors who in many cases bear primary responsibility for the very messes we're talking about.
It's smart politics, well thought-out. Or is it? The modern Democratic Party seems forever to be looking for nuance, when taking a stand would do just as well. Let gay people be soldiers, don't invade the wrong country, break up dangerous banks. An idea isn't automatically bad just because it's simple.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/hillary-clintons-take-on-banks-wont-hold-up-20151014?page=3
No matter what she says, as long as Shillary is a female Democrat, every female who is remotely close to college age will vote for her
probably true, but Repugs lose the female vote wonderfully every election.
lol you Bernie supporters talking about Hillary will be the first to jump on the Hillary bandwagon when she wins.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
