BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate

Subject: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: Joe Offer
Date: 13 Oct 15 - 11:19 PM

I think that tonight's debate made the Democratic Party look very good. The candidates had a rational, spirited discussion - and they were not out to destroy each other. Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders both were as good as I expected them to be, and I think that Clinton was able to disprove all the flak she's gotten on the non-issues the Republicans have hurled at them.
I was also very impressed with former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley. Everything he said, made sense. I think we're going to hear more from him in the future - it's clear he's a good man. Former Senator/Governor Lincoln Chafee seemed to be a nice man with pretty good ideas, but more-or-less forgettable. Former Virginia senator and Vietnam war veteran Jim Webb sounded more Republican than Democrat, but I think he'd be a better Republican candidate than anybody else in the Republican field.
I was surprised that Bernie Sanders was more conservative on gun control than Clinton or O'Malley.

CNN has some interesting video clips from the debate. I especially liked Clinton's non-answer to Chafee.

-Joe-

---

And here's Trump's response: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald-trump-tweeting-democratic-debate/story?id=34446300

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: GUEST,Ed
Date: 14 Oct 15 - 03:45 PM

Joe,

I find it a shame that no one has bothered to respond to your thread.

I well realise that people get turned off by the endless political drivel repeated ad nauseam by a few British posters, but it would be good to hear some American opinions.

Being from the UK, I haven't paid that much attention to the issues, but there was a piece on one of of news programmes (Channel 4) reporting on it.

It concluded that Clinton is, unless she really messes up, pretty much a done deal.

Is that the general opinion?

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: Bill D
Date: 14 Oct 15 - 04:44 PM

I only saw parts of the debate...(too much going on)... and I generally agree with Joe and various pundits that the tone and basic competence of the 5 was good. I do, however agree with Chafee & Webb that they got shorted on time & attention. If they were qualified to be on stage, they should have been allowed to say something! I realize that neither has a chance of winning, but that's a not a 'good' reason to treat them as just stage props.

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: Mrrzy
Date: 15 Oct 15 - 04:17 PM

I just saw this thread.

I thought Hillary looked and sounded great, and I don't like her. I thought Bernie sounded good and looked awful, and don't like him either. I find it interesting that in internet polls I test as agreeing with him so much more than it seems I actually agree with him.


I'm not sure she won or that it technically was a debate, but the others can all go home now.

Slate has some interesting articles including how stellar Hillary was, and how Bernie may have won the polls but she still won the debate (which brings back my earlier point about the disjunct between face and online Bernie). I'm not lazy, but I'm skipping the individual blickies because when I went to look for those urls, there was a lot of other really good stuff there.

I am sure it was *superbly* run/moderated. Probably helped that all the candidates had manners/acted like grownups. Grups, not Onlies.

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Oct 15 - 05:37 PM

Seems that US politics are even more inane than ours...:0(

How can anyone seriously consider a "hawk" for president when obviously diplomacy is required in current foreign affairs?

Mrs Clinton's record in the Obama administration is a catalogue of horrific gaffs, so bad that I began to think it was deliberate.

Sanders seems a reasonable man, but has no chance with the media guided public. Perhaps, like Corbyn in the UK, his job will be to educate America into the mysteries of very mild socialism.

Being a woman gives Mrs Clinton a distinct advantage, as the media love a "sensation".....first female president and all that!

It's just too depressing for words, America surely deserves better than these monkeys on both wings of the same bird.

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Oct 15 - 05:41 PM

I know that I've said it already, but it should not be forgotten that Mrs Clinton was the driving force behind US involvement in Libya, arguably the catalyst for IS expansion in Syria and Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Deb
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Oct 15 - 08:04 PM

Just saw a few minutes of it. Interesting to see the way the US national anthem came into it, and how differently they treat it to the UK.

On comes with solo lady to sing it, pretty badly, and everyone stands around silent with their hands on their chest like Napoleon.

I can't imagine anyone having the national anthem at an equivalent event here. And if they did they'd all be expected to sing it, and of course they'd be crucifiedy if they just stood there looking solemn.

There must be some people over there up to singing that song straigjtforwardly and competently. And how do they stop people joining in? It's a great tune, and its origin was a drinking song meant for a bunch of boozers to sing together.

After that it went down hill. Hilary Clinton is supposed to have made a big hit with it. She must have got a whole lot better than she was in the bits I saw.

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: Greg F.
Date: 15 Oct 15 - 08:19 PM

How can anyone seriously consider a "hawk" for president

As opposed to considering any of the complete fucking idiots on the Republican side?

Jesus wept........

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Oct 15 - 09:30 PM

It is a bit depressing really.

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: GUEST,Woodrow
Date: 16 Oct 15 - 07:03 AM

It is clear that someone here hates America.

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Oct 15 - 09:34 AM

...some Republican pundits dismissed the debate as fluff, and accused Anderson Cooper of pitching "softball" questions at the candidates. What debate were they listening to? The Democrats tried to, at least, offer up some solutions to the issues facing the USA. Others may disagree with those solutions, but what do the Republicans offer in contrast? Repeals of everything Obama has done in the last seven years. So- erase the last seven years and take US citizens back to 2008? That was a disastrous year in American history. At least the Democrats are trying to plod ahead. The Republicans are trying to take us backward. Which direction do the American people want to go? We'll see in about a year.

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Oct 15 - 11:05 AM

Nobody hates Americans as much as Americans hate other Americans. At least that's how it looks to a spectator.

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: GUEST,Woodrow
Date: 16 Oct 15 - 01:05 PM

It is clear that someone here hates America. Not Americans. Speak for yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: Ebbie
Date: 16 Oct 15 - 01:42 PM

Sheesh. Obviously we all bring ourselves to the table. I liked the debate- which was totally different from the Republican's debates I watched. The Reps' answers and demeanor made me squirm and cringe.

The Democrats' debate made me sit up and take notice of what each candidate was going to say. I was favorably impressed by Sanders, Clinton and O'Malley. Chaffee has some positions I like but I can't imagine him in any public office. Webb came across - to me - as petulant and angry, a man I would not willingly listen to for more than five or at most ten minutes- and that would be out of politeness.

At this point, I still favor Sanders.

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: akenaton
Date: 16 Oct 15 - 06:23 PM

Why only a handful of posts in what should be a busy and interesting thread?   Does no one wonder why there is not a greater degree of choice amongst candidates?

Why do you let the political dynasties continue to rule such a huge country? Why does money play such a huge part in US politics?
It amazes me that normal folks can be so partisan about two Parties who run the country in more or less the same way.

Mr Obame was supposed to represent "change", when he was elected I offed the thought that, "he will change only what he is allowed to change"
I was roundly condemned for saying it, but after eight years can you say with hand on heart that anything has changed?

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: Ebbie
Date: 16 Oct 15 - 07:00 PM

"political dynasties?" We don't have any. Look it up.

"It amazes me that normal folks can be so partisan about two Parties who run the country in more or less the same way." ake

The reason our country under either party is run "in more or less the same way" is because both parties operate from the same playbook.

Within that playbook, however, are tremendous differences, both in attitude, approach and means and in outcomes. Take a look at the people with their varying plans and methods over the last 35-40 years and you will see.

Incidentally, you may note that Republicans claim that the main reason that there are people drawn to the Democratic view is "Free Stuff!" That is not true except in a very borderline kind of way: We want the free stuff, yes (which, of course, is not free at all) but we want *everyone* to have it. Things like good, affordable health care, good, clean water, clean air, monitored foodstuffs, regulated industry so that pollutant emitters are kept accountable... There are a host of other issues that we feel strongly about. Liberals want to live well, yes, but they want the same thing for all.

Republicans, on the other hand, focus on the mechanics; they charge that Democrats/liberals try to *force* everyone to our way of thinking, and they , too frequently, don't want any of those things UNLESS and UNTIL they need them. Take a look at the history of recent disasters to see how swiftly they change their views when it is their community, their state that is suffering.

It is pathetic.

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: akenaton
Date: 16 Oct 15 - 07:11 PM

Yes, but how about answering the questions.
Don't have any dynasties?....surely you jest?
Both Democrats and Republicans have had several in my lifetime. It seems to revolve around huge amounts of MONEY.

Where are all the clever American Mudcats? Have they given up?

I think after the dirty battle between Hillary and Mr Obama, they are ashamed of the "choice" left to the electorate

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: Ebbie
Date: 16 Oct 15 - 07:25 PM

How are you defining 'dynasty'?

As for the "clever American Mudcats"? I guess they are leaving it to the dumb asses like you and me, ake.

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: Mrrzy
Date: 16 Oct 15 - 10:33 PM

My main argument against Hillary is that she's a hawk - but she still looked and sounded great.

The less hawkish made less sense everywhere else.

But yeah, she is that. I don't want that in the White House at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: Jeri
Date: 16 Oct 15 - 10:37 PM

One troll, and everybody gives the thread away...

So what did you think about the DEBATE, Ake!?

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: akenaton
Date: 17 Oct 15 - 03:26 AM

I only saw tiny soundbites jeri.....and who are you referring to as a troll?   I thought the American members could give us some insight into how the public view politics.

People are continually complaining about the two party system on Mudcat......any ideas on how you change the status quo?

I found ALL of the candidates very uninspiring, no new ideas, just the same old divisive "ya boo" stuff. "Look what the "Pubs/Dems are doing"..... Admittedly I did not see all the debate.

"Look what the "Pubs/Dems are doing"

When Mr Obama was promising "change", you couldn't keep the members quiet, hundreds of posts on several threads......what's happened.

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 17 Oct 15 - 04:01 AM

Why is she considered to be a "hawk" ? She seems to me to be A very good candidate.

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: GUEST,Woodrow
Date: 17 Oct 15 - 04:36 AM

In the few minuites that i watched it all i saw was political posturing and panderinv to the electorate in an effort to be elected. Same old shit that has been going on for 7 years while the us sinks lower and lower into third world status. The biggest threat, the $18 trillion+ national debt was never mentioned. Look at the shiny red ball. It's guns, it's global warming, it's the lack citizenship and full entitlements for illegal aliens. Who is the leader of the free world now? Putin? Iran? Hillary "I dont feel no ways tard" Clinton? il Papa?

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Oct 15 - 11:16 AM

Ostensibly one could argue there are four party candidates running under two party banners: Democrat and Republican.

Sen. Bernie Sanders' political views align more closely with a Social Democrat (and that's how he refers to himself) than with a traditional Democrat. Republican pundits slammed him after the debate when he referenced Denmark. The pundits cited the tax rate on Denmark's citizens. It all boils down to how much bang those citizens get for their buck. A tax hike on US citizens would not be so bad if it resulted in greater access to health care, education, and other social programs.

Secy. Clinton (in this race) represents a more mainstream view of Democrat values, despite her "hawkish" proclivities, which she earned apparently, for her vote as senator to invade Iraq, and her stance on intervention into Libya as Secretary of State.

Sen. Ted Cruz represents the "Tea Party" faction of the Republican party while Gov. Jeb Bush represents the staid "country club" Republicans.

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Oct 15 - 01:07 PM

Several posters...including a couple who admit they saw only bits of the debate... sure have strong opinions about the candidates- expressed with simplistic labels.. "she's a hawk"

I saw parts live... and much more in replays... and have heard hours of commentary about it, as well as live conversations with all 5 candidates. Whatever you think about the platforms, attitudes and demeanor of them, especially the 3 major ones, it is evident that they are all intelligent, qualified and concerned with the security, finances, environment, class struggles, laws, etc...etc.. in the US.
Ask yourselves what seems to be the concerns and qualifications of the various Republicans. I see narrow special interest issues on abortion, capital punishment-(they're for it) guns, religion, personal wealth and how to sustain it for the few, 'freedom'... as in "I don't like being told what to do."etc... and they feel that almost any tricks (packing the courts, Gerrymandering, buying elections) are fair game in pursuit of **winning**. Almost NONE of the Repubs who have serious education & knowledge are running these days... rather it is narrow-minded, scheming, manipulating, power-hungry, slogan-spouting wannabes who fight with each other as much as with Democrats. The demographics are turning against them, so they are desperate to do as Karl Rove tried to do when he manipulated Bush.... set up a system where they could NOT lose, based on the Gerrymandering, Citizens United fiasco, and court packing. IF the Dems win this time, the Supreme Court will likely lose its hard-right orientation and gradually make the Repubs either become more moderate or fall apart..(if it hasn't already).

I read about British elections, but I confess I have little knowledge of the details of the issues, the quirks & personalities of the candidates, or the complexities of the party structure... but I see Brits here who show that they don't understand OUR system, yet have strong opinions about who, where & what is involved.
... and NO Ake... Clinton & Obama did NOT have a " dirty battle"... they had some disagreements, he won and then appointed HER to Sec. of State! All presidents have slightly different views of the issues... that's why we have these debates. (A few years ago, we a one whose policy was "bring ALL the troops home NOW"... that would have been interesting. Another would have 'solved' everything by 'bombing Iraq back to the stone age'.)

   Like it or not, the USA is a major player in the crazy, complex of global relationships. We need the closest we can get to sane, educated, competent, careful leaders. I can name a dozen Democrats besides those running who I'd trust with the job... whether I agree with all their ideas or not. I can only think of two or three Republicans who don't scare me silly at the idea of them running things- and those are staying way away from this current circus!

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Oct 15 - 01:17 PM

And... I have never understood why Hillary has not directly used the obvious defense for her vote on 'war' with Iraq. (I heard ONE pundit refer to it obliquely)

'After 9/11, there was a lot of concern about who was involved and where future dangers were located. George Bush was president, receiving daily briefing from the CIA and other 'experts'. He had access to supposed information that others did not. *HE* said that Iraq was developing 'weapons of mass destruction', based on intelligence gathering. Dick Cheney said it was "a slam dunk" that we'd find them. I voted the best I knew, giving the president the 'benefit of the doubt'. I wish I had known more about his sources.'

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 17 Oct 15 - 01:31 PM

It seems to me that no-one hates (some) Americans as much as (some) Americans hate non-Americans - particularly those in or seeking to enter America.

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: Ebbie
Date: 17 Oct 15 - 03:00 PM

I don't think that "(some) Americans hate non-Americans" here but I do get tired of the European-style of argument wherein it seems that one can say anything in any tone of voice and expect others, not born to the culture, to accept and understand the sentiment behind it. To me, it seems that insult and denigration are common tools to Europeans, much more so than to Americans (and I am including Canada- Canadians, I think, have the same view of respecting the speaker).

That said, I *don't* respect the random non-sequitur thrown into a conversation- "I don't feel no-ways tard"- Really? Did you look at that link, ake? It is from the 2008 presidential race and quotes a line from a 'black' hymn.

And Richard Bridge, the USA does not hate those immigrants "in or seeking to enter America". That applies an awfully broad brush and most of us don't deserve that smear. This country is a nation of immigrants; many, many of us have parents or grandparents from the 'old country'. The current controversy addresses the under-the-barbed wire approach to immigration, worries about our economy, and the future of the country. For the record, I don't share those worries but many do, in all sincerity. As far as I can see, differing views have made our country what it is and I am for it.

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: akenaton
Date: 17 Oct 15 - 05:10 PM

Ebbie "I don't feel no ways tard"......haven't a clue what it means and I certainly never wrote it.

I always read "links" and appreciate other members taking the time to post them.

I still feel that although well intentioned President Obama's tenure was a bit of a damp squib.......and much of the reason must be laid at his own door for the mistake of appointing Mrs Clinton to his administration.

The Clintons had their eyes on the Presidency from day one and Mrs Clinton tried very hard to steal the Presidents thunder in foreign Affairs......The fact that she created an almighty mess in the process does not seem to have sunk in to the US electorate.

Not only did she create a mess, but spoiled any chance of an honest and respectable man being able to leave a recognisable legacy to posterity.

Oh and Ebbie, my remark was not intended as a comment of our lack of education, though mine was very basic :0)

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: Ebbie
Date: 17 Oct 15 - 06:44 PM

I am sorry, ake. It was not you who posted this: "Who is the leader of the free world now? Putin? Iran? Hillary "I dont feel no ways tard" Clinton? il Papa?"

I have no idea of what Guest/Woodrow had/has in mind in throwing that in.

You, ake, do say this, however:
"The Clintons had their eyes on the Presidency from day one and Mrs Clinton tried very hard to steal the Presidents thunder in foreign Affairs......The fact that she created an almighty mess in the process does not seem to have sunk in to the US electorate.

Not only did she create a mess, but spoiled any chance of an honest and respectable man being able to leave a recognisable legacy to posterity."

Your opinion on this matter doesn't carry much weight with me. It is your opinion, evidently, but in my view you formed that opinion based on your own interpretation of events and facts. Many - myself included - may not hold that view.

I especially don't understand your believing that Mrs. Clinton "tried very hard to steal the Presidents (sic) thunder..."

What?

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Oct 15 - 07:00 PM

No, aken - "no ways tard" wasn't you, it was Guest Woodrow playing with a quote from Hilary Clinton, to bring in an abbreviation of "retard", an insult word that fortunately we don't hear that often over here. We've got nasty little equivalents, of course.

I think the reason people in the UK get involved in these kind of political grudge fights more than the other way, is that it actually matters to us what happens over there, and our national media probably gives about as much attention to it as it does to what happens here. In fact generally a lot more attention than it does to what happens here outside London.

As to whether political discourse is nastier here or in the States, it probably varies - but we've never to my memory had anything remotely comparable to the kind of hate directed at Obama over the years, that birther/muslim stuff aimed at a clearly decent man, albeit with politics straight out of our Conservative party.

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: Amos
Date: 17 Oct 15 - 07:03 PM

Joe is right about the relative sincerity and sobriety and sanity of the particpants as contrasted with the Trump/FIona/etal debacle.

I wish Bernie was a woman.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: Ebbie
Date: 17 Oct 15 - 07:49 PM

Amos! He would look weird. :)

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Oct 15 - 03:44 AM

It shouldn't matter Amos, though it does illustrate the hold the media has over how we vote and what we are prepared to accept socially.

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Oct 15 - 05:52 PM

I get a vision of some overly ambitious candidate faced with that comment from the focus groups. "Well, if that's what it takes..."

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: Mrrzy
Date: 19 Oct 15 - 12:35 AM

The reason I think she's a hawk is that she keep talking about being "tough+ --especially in ways Obama wasn't (in her take) - see here for a simple google search. Including an article that calls her tough stance a scam.

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: Ebbie
Date: 19 Oct 15 - 04:38 PM

ake, I recognize that many people, Americans included, don't like or trust Hillary Clinton, and they make all kinds of statements about it. Rarely, however, do they specify what misdeeds she has committed. You make the same statements here and I would like an itemization of your generalizations. Who knows- maybe you'll make me a believer. So how about it?

akenaton - PM
Date: 15 Oct 15 - 05:37 PM Mrs Clinton's record in the Obama administration is a catalogue of horrific gaffs, so bad that I began to think it was deliberate.

: akenaton - PM
Date: 17 Oct 15 - 05:10 PM
The Clintons had their eyes on the Presidency from day one and Mrs Clinton tried very hard to steal the Presidents thunder in foreign Affairs......The fact that she created an almighty mess in the process does not seem to have sunk in to the US electorate.

Ebbie - PM
Date: 17 Oct 15 - 06:44 PM
I especially don't understand your believing that Mrs. Clinton "tried very hard to steal the Presidents (sic) thunder..."

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: Donuel
Date: 19 Oct 15 - 06:50 PM

Larry David came in 1st.

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: Mrrzy
Date: 20 Oct 15 - 04:30 PM

OK, I posted this, and it vanished, do we suspect a conspiracy? Not really.

Anyway, Clinton used to throw lamps when she was mad, per people I know in the State Department whose names I shall not use. That is unpresidential to me.

And she does keep talking about how she would be "tougher" on terrorists and all, which sounds a lot like "I would send in troops" - which is hawkish, which I am against. I already posted a link to a lot of those.

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: Ebbie
Date: 21 Oct 15 - 01:37 AM

I have read in various places that Clinton swears at people and has thrown stuff at her husband, etc.

Given all the stuff that her husband put her through - and publicly- I may well have sworn at him and thrown things at him too.

As for whether such conduct is presidential I would submit that we have no way of knowing what presidents do and have done in the privacy of their own home.

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: Greg F.
Date: 21 Oct 15 - 08:10 AM

I would submit that we have no way of knowing what presidents do and have done in the privacy of their own home.

And I would submit that its reall none of our business, just as it is none of theirs to know what we do in ours.

Nor does it have any necessary impact on what sort of president they will be.

Now, what the Republican candidates have done and are currently doing IN PUBLIC is an entirely different story.

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: Airymouse
Date: 21 Oct 15 - 09:46 AM

Three candidates had serious baggage: Sander's vote against the Brady bill, Clinton's e-mails and her sudden switch to cuddling up to Wall Street after she became Senator of NY, and O'Malley's one-strike-and- you're-out policy which contributed to the problems in Baltimore. Only Clinton escaped unscathed, mostly because of Sander's policy of sticking to issues and not making ad hominem attacks. As others have observed only Clinton and perhaps Sanders and Biden remain serious contenders, but you could see from the debate that O'Malley is aiming for the vice-presidency: his attack of Sander's record on gun control let Clinton stay above the fray. In effect O'Malley did Clinton's dirty work for her.

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: Greg F.
Date: 21 Oct 15 - 10:14 AM

Sander's vote against the Brady bill

Not so serious at all. That as 1993. This is now. Read his more current statements on firearms.

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: Airymouse
Date: 21 Oct 15 - 11:40 AM

I agree with the view of the last post, but my point was that O'Malley made Sanders look bad. Sanders's vote on the Brady bill was something Sanders had to deal with and the defense that Sanders gave, that he had to vote against the bill because he came from a rural state, was torpedoed by O'Malley, to the benefit mainly of Clinton. Meanwhile Clinton never had to deal with her support of the big banks or with her e-mails. It is true that in his campaign speeches O'Malley pointed out the huge speaking fees that Clinton received from the major Wall Street banks (and the major campaign contributions from this source for both her Senate and Presidential campaigns,) but there was not a peep from him about this during the debate.

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: Ebbie
Date: 22 Oct 15 - 02:30 AM

Well, Joe Biden has made his decision, so that's that. And O'Malley has sunk really deeply into the nether regions, so that may be that for him too.

On the other hand, it is still so early in the campaign season I doubt any real conclusions can be drawn.

But oh my god- what if Trump gets their nomination??

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Oct 15 - 10:22 AM

..then the pundits claim he will be easy to beat in the General Election. Trump's depth of understanding on any substantive issue is sorely lacking. He has about as much profundity as Kim Kardashian. All he knows is how to look good for the camera (debatable) and speak in simple terms the third-grade mentality of the voters who like him can understand.

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: Greg F.
Date: 22 Oct 15 - 10:55 AM

Dr. Batshit Crazy is now leading Trump in the polls. Abandon hope.....

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Oct 15 - 11:36 AM

...just a guess but neither one of these two yay-hoos is going to be the Rebublican nominee for President ..the country-club faction of the 'Pubs won't allow it. It will be Bush vs Clinton ..again. Wait for the dirt on Carson (it's already started...a mother claims he botched a brain surgery on her child)...and Trump will self-destruct. A reporter somewhere is thinking up a question right now that will sink Trump so badly he won't be able to dig himself out of it ...maybe goading him into using a racial slur or something.

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: akenaton
Date: 22 Oct 15 - 01:11 PM

It's a sad state of affairs that you are saddled with.
"The devil and the deep blue sea".

I don't see one credible candidate in either party. Perhaps Sanders, but he seems half hearted......not an inspirational leader and why does he refer to himself as a "Socialist Democrat"? Does he mean "Social Democrat"......someone should explain the difference to him.

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: akenaton
Date: 22 Oct 15 - 01:13 PM

I think the American people deserve much better than this shower of shysters and psychopaths.

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Oct 15 - 03:10 PM

"Rarely, however, do they specify what misdeeds she has committed"

Iraq. It's enough.

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: Bill D
Date: 22 Oct 15 - 07:11 PM

Sanders calls himself a "Democratic Socialist" and he explains that in detail to anyone who asks. Labels are irrelevant...

"Credible candidates"? What do you want? Ms. Clinton has credentials to spare... and a command of the issues rivaling Bill Clinton! Do I automatically with anything she says or does? No... but I didn't totally agree with anyone from FDR on!
Which British politicians do you find totally credible? A Democracy is, by definition, subject to some odd choices at all levels... witness the current Republican circus! Sanders accepts Democracy, but appends certain aspects of 'socialism' to it... meaning fair treatment for **everyone** and changes in tax systems and voting procedures to attain this. He has no vision of anything like Communism.

Ake... you presume a lot from your perch 'over there'. You cannot possibly discern the nuances of either this election or the American system in general. You DO echo some of the sour grapes remarks some of US make by just waving their arms and branding all current politicians as "bought and biased and useless". There are 500+ members of Congress and many thousands of lower level people in this country... some of them are fools, and some of them are brilliant. It is work to sort them out in a Democracy.
I can name a dozen that I would find acceptable to see the highest offices... and there are more that never get noticed; but when the media spotlight hits in an important election, the steam roller of mud-slinging begins trying to spin ANY data into accusations of incompetence and lying and such.... sadly, it is SO much work to sort the wheat from the chaff that many voters merely take the easy path and follow 'talking points' and slogans.
You, sir, simply fall into that trap.

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: Ebbie
Date: 22 Oct 15 - 08:59 PM

McGrath of Harlow, Yes, Clinton voted Yes on the Iraq question but so did *almost* 100% of the Senate. Surely not *all* of them were evil or stupid. Manipulated and mistaken is what they were. Name me one person who has not found themselves in that position at one point or another. Me? You?

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: akenaton
Date: 23 Oct 15 - 08:02 AM

Hillary the Hawk did not learn from the Iraq experience, she pushed Mr Obama into a disgraceful attack on Libya with the horrendous consequences we see today.

IMO that makes her evil AND stupid.

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: GUEST,gillymor
Date: 23 Oct 15 - 08:29 AM

A nuanced and well-reasoned argument there, Ache but you forgot to add that her mother wears combat boots.

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: Bill D
Date: 23 Oct 15 - 09:31 AM

LOL gillymor.... after I watched her be grilled mercilessly for 10 hours yesterday, I'm sure they regret NOT mentioning her mother's combat boots!


Ake...she did NOT 'push Obama' into anything! You just demonstrated my point about simplistic accusations and slogans.

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: akenaton
Date: 23 Oct 15 - 11:55 AM

Just one of many commentators views
Clinton pushed Obama on Libya.
Still LOLing Bill?

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: GUEST,gillymorg4
Date: 23 Oct 15 - 12:23 PM

Ah yes, the Washington Times, you won't see a more reliable news source unless you're standing in line at the supermarket.

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: akenaton
Date: 23 Oct 15 - 03:30 PM

Don't know anything about the WT, but there are dozens of commentators saying that Libya was Clinton's baby and that is exactly the view I got from news coverage in the UK.

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: Bill D
Date: 23 Oct 15 - 06:06 PM

We DO know something about the Wash.Times. Totally financed by the Korean 'preacher'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Times

A staunch, right-wing rag that would never survive on ts own.

As Ms. Clinton explained at length yesterday, major decisions about Libya were made by Obama... after inputs from the CIA, the diplomats on the ground, the State Dept. staff, and 'partly' by her own suggestions. Daily adjustments in real time are never made by the Sec, of State. You simply cannot pin the overall strategy for such a complex situation on any one person... (and she had a couple of hundred countries whose diplomatic situations she was overseeing.)

"...there are dozens of commentators saying.." And dozens more saying the opposite. You can probably find a couple saying she is in league with Satan....

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: Greg F.
Date: 23 Oct 15 - 06:28 PM

dozens of commentators

Which ones, exactly, and what is their agenda?

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: akenaton
Date: 23 Oct 15 - 06:39 PM

I followed the Libyan situation carefully Bill, having been opposed to the support of "the moderate rebels" right from the start(see the Libya threads on this forum), President Obama was very unwilling to commit himself or your country to an armed attack.
He was put in a position(by Clinton) where refusal to attack the regime would have looked like weakness.....he eventually agreed making a situation where he could not win.

If things ended well Mrs Clinton would get the credit, and if things ended badly, he (Obama) would get the blame.

Fortunately many people realised exactly what Mrs Clintons intentions were and hopefully will not forget her actions in the coming elections.
I always thought President Obama would be relatively powerless to effect change, but despite that, I feel him to be a decent individual in a dirty business..... one for which he appears to have lost the appetite.

Isn't about time you all started looking beyond the old "cold warriors" and find some representatives with vision and a penchant for diplomacy?

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: Greg F.
Date: 23 Oct 15 - 06:46 PM

many people realised exactly what Mrs Clintons intentions were

Who were these "many people" and what were these supposed "intentions" ??

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: Bill D
Date: 23 Oct 15 - 06:57 PM

"...many people realised exactly what Mrs Clintons intentions were .."

Oh.. mind readers! Wow.....

What "many people" did was project what they wanted to believe onto anything that happened.

"President Obama was very unwilling to commit himself or your country to an armed attack."

Gee... amazing insight!

He had said for a long time that he did not intend to commit troops in any manner that would get the US into another ground war in the region. Nothing Ms. Clinton did (anyway, nothing public that YOU would have access to) had any effect on his ultimate decisions. You are drawing implications from 'sources' that spend WAY too much time second guessing the motives of our leaders. Her political ambitions, whatever they were at the time, were not the issue.
Dealing with an impossible situation where 4-5 interests and countries were doing a dangerous dance all over the middle-east can easily be 'interpreted' in several ways.

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: akenaton
Date: 23 Oct 15 - 06:59 PM

Greg, certainly most political commentators in the UK were of the opinion that Clinton pushed for military action in Libya against the better judgement of President Obama.
At the time this was big news in the UK.

Are CNN not a reasonably even handed news outlet?

I can give some links to UK papers if required.
CNN

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: akenaton
Date: 23 Oct 15 - 07:06 PM

Gee Bill, I at least had the "insight" to realise the intervention would lead to a catastrophe.    Didn't see much "insight" from you or others in the threads dealing with Libya at the time?

I you want to be sarcastic, I can take it and give it, but I would rather keep the discussion impersonal.

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: Bill D
Date: 24 Oct 15 - 12:05 PM

Ok Ake... I've been reading thru that CNN article. Then I looked up the author of the article,

http://www.cnn.com/profiles/stephen-collinson

It is always prudent to look behind long articles which take a negative position...(just like one tries to discern the motives when some person or position is excessively praised.)

I seems that Collinson was 'recently' hired to cover the 'stuff' around the 2016 races. A quick look at the topics, plus reading some of them shows a certain trend...perhaps best explained by this blurb about Collinson.

"The network announced the news series this week, rolling out the debut episode from Collinson's native England where he's covering the UK elections. Collinson, a former AFP White House correspondent, promises to give viewers a fun and easy-to-understand guide through a series of fascinating and complex political races and issues each week. CNN says a second episode is slated to hit tomorrow."

The closest I can come to a brief analysis is that Collinson was hired to "stir the pot" and be provocative... something which various UK commentators seem to relish.

That needs to be considered just as carefully as the raw details ABOUT Libya and the various roles different individuals had in determining policy about possible intervention and what it should include.

In Collinson's article, this appears:

"it is clear that Clinton and other top administration aides perceived an agonizing dilemma: Should they take action to avert human carnage or stand by and be accused of abetting genocide?

"Imagine we were sitting here and Benghazi had been overrun, a city of 700,000 people, and tens of thousands of people had been slaughtered, hundreds of thousands had fled," Clinton said on ABC's "This Week" in March 2011. "The cries would be, 'Why did the United States not do anything?' "

In more than one situation in the last few years, that is exactly the cry that we heard. You in the UK heard cries asking "why did WE get so deeply involved with these impossible fights among Arab powers?"
When any attempt to intercede is not ultimately successful, or only partly so, there are always complaints about the money spent and lives lost.... no matter what altruistic (OR political) motives are stated.
Ms. Clinton's judgment was part of the process... she was Sec. of State! It is still clear that she asserted her desire to save lives and **try** to help make Libya independent and able to function. Those who spin that to make it seem like she was mostly concerned about 'her legacy' ...and laying Libya's later problems at her feet are taking the negative view that 'If it doesn't work as hoped, it should never have been tried, and her entire judgment was flawed and/or based on her desire to enhance her legacy.'
History is full of good ideas which failed... and many that succeeded! When MacArthur landed at Inchon during the Korean war, it could have been total disaster due to tides and weather. Afterward, it was hailed as brilliant. When Eisenhower gave the go ahead to land at Normandy, it could have failed even worse. At least back then the issues were clearer and the enemy was obvious.
Now, it is hard to even sort out who we are for or against, and intervention is often based on the possibility of just easing things for innocent non-combatants...(yes, with the hope that IF things settle down, it will ease diplomacy for us in the long run.)

You may interpret as you please, but I have no reason to doubt Clinton's stated intent. IF Libya was now settling into a sane, viable state, would you still claim her decisions were flawed... and call her a hawk? To me, a 'hawk' is one whose first response to any conflict is to 'send in the Marines and bomb anything that looks like like a problem'. Dick Cheney and John McCain come close to that, but I shudder to imagine what Libya would look like today if McCain had been elected. We know what the middle east looks like after Cheney & Bush made their decisions.

So...that's about as 'impersonal' as I can be. I don't expect that it will change your mind one whit.. but I often need to see my viewpoint in print, and reading and debating helps ME better work out what I think.

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: Greg F.
Date: 24 Oct 15 - 12:29 PM

political commentators in the UK were of the opinion

Right. Political commentators - all born with a caul, I presume?

Right. Opinion. Look that up in your dictionary, Pharoah.

Its not a synonym for "fact".

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: akenaton
Date: 24 Oct 15 - 12:41 PM

I am not at the moment arguing the rights and wrongs of Mrs Clintons actions in Libya, I am simply responding to those who deny that she is widely perceived as the driving force behind US action in Libya.

I of course do not agree with your assessment of Clintons motivation or the beneficial effects of attacking the Libyan regime.

The same situation is evolving in Syria today almost all opposition to Assad's regime can be described as terrorism, in the same way as the "moderates" in Libya showed their true colours after the overthrow and murder of Col Gaddafi .....the episode which we all saw the "gentle" Mrs Clinton chortling about.

American politicians should accept Putin's offer to share intelligence and rid the world of its biggest menace, Islamic Jihadists.

They of course are stuck in an ideological trough, where all they see is the myth of being seen as Democracy bringers to a land a thousand times more lawless and terrifying than the Wild West.

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: akenaton
Date: 24 Oct 15 - 12:47 PM

If I could work out that the removal of Gaddafi would turn Libya into a lawless desert, inhabited by head chopping psychopaths, why was it beyond the powers of Mrs Clinton?

I do not believe that Clinton was motivated by the plight of the Libyan people for one instant, she must have known the fate that her policies would mean for them.

She cant be THAT stupid.

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: akenaton
Date: 24 Oct 15 - 12:54 PM

Greg.....I have yet to read one credible source which believes that the decision to attack either Iraq or Libya were the correct ones.

The policy was proved wrong in Iraq, but was repeated by incompetent US and UK governments in Libya with disastrous results.

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 25 Oct 15 - 12:13 AM

"If I could work out that the removal of Gaddafi would turn Libya into a lawless desert, inhabited by head chopping psychopaths, why was it beyond the powers of Mrs Clinton?"

It wasn't....she had a different agenda.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: Bill D
Date: 25 Oct 15 - 09:23 AM

"If I could work out.."
You didn't... you guessed .. and then classified the parts you guessed right about to fit your overall image.

...and "a lawless desert, inhabited by head chopping psychopaths".... is about the most blatant over-stated generalization I have seen in ages. You must tell us what % of those 'lawless desert dwellers' actually do any head-chopping.

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: GUEST,gillymor
Date: 25 Oct 15 - 09:45 AM

What I can't work out is why Ache rattles on about "Hillary the Hawk" while at the same time promoting an alliance with a couple of murderous despots like Assad and Putin to supposedly save the middle east. Perhaps his socialism is of the "Nationalist" variety as a number of posters here have suggested.

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: akenaton
Date: 26 Oct 15 - 09:29 AM

I didn't "guess", I looked at Iraq!    Clinton of course supported and still supports the US action there.

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: Bill D
Date: 26 Oct 15 - 10:27 AM

You "looked at Iraq"... and THEN guessed about any relevance or connection.

I have "looked at Iraq" for 15 years or so. Ain't it amazing how I can miss all those obvious details that you see so clearly.. (he said, with tongue stuck firmly in cheek)

Clinton made one vote about going into Iraq, based on giving Bush the benefit of the doubt because, as president he was supposed to have access to all the relevant intelligence. She has since said, about 20 times, that she regrets that vote and wishes she'd had better information. She guessed wrong, but her opponents treat it like she planned the whole thing.
It is looking more & more like she is likely to be the next president...... so we shall see how it goes, hmmmm?

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: akenaton
Date: 26 Oct 15 - 02:24 PM

Well she'll be your President not mine.....thank God.

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 27 Oct 15 - 03:40 AM

....depending on how they RIG it.....See, technically, when she gave her testimony to the Benghazi Senate Gang, she(reluctantly, but slickly) admitted to exchanging E-mails with Blumenthal and forwarded a couple of his, to Obama, who categorically refused to have him on, nor was he cleared on the security levels, appropriate to the classified, info, being exchanged....sooooo...that is illegal..felony, too...so, depending on who owes who, or what, and/or what 'deal' can be cut, she might not even be indicted!....and then it came out that while she was telling the world, that it was caused by a video, while telling 'her family', oh, and the President of Egypt, that it was an attack, and not the video!

Oh Goody!!..We get to vote for yet another lying fraud!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: GUEST,gillymor
Date: 27 Oct 15 - 07:00 AM

"Get your Benghazi Scorecards right here. Can't tell the political assassins without a scorecard."

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 27 Oct 15 - 11:26 AM

You missed the point, in your eagerness to make a point!....The things that did come out, is of interest to the other investigation by the FBI, in regards to her E-mail mess.....that is a separate issue....and she admitted to enough to get her in hot water with THAT investigation. Whether or not they go after her on that, is another question, depending on the back room deals.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: Greg F.
Date: 27 Oct 15 - 11:55 AM

Yep - it may be a "separate issue", but its the same unadulterated horseshit as all the other "issues", Goofus.

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: GUEST,gillymorg4
Date: 27 Oct 15 - 12:17 PM

Quite right, Greg. What they're really asking in the "backrooms" is how can we keep these show trials going right up to the elections and how long will our pea-brained constituents continue to buy it. Erstwhile Speaker canidate Kevin McCarthy already clued us in as to their motivation.

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 27 Oct 15 - 11:38 PM

Well, of course, that is the 'so-called liberal' mantra...but McCarthy, isn't the one who ordered an FBI investigation!....and things discovered, and the going forward on that, will be topic of a lot of backroom negotiations...what 'favors exchanged' and such....and what she admitted to, during the other(Benghazi) hearings, leave the other door WIDE open....if you can grasp this, it's not a talking point.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: GUEST,gillymor
Date: 28 Oct 15 - 12:13 AM

Dream on, Goofus.

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Oct 15 - 04:28 AM

The sad fact Sanity, is that if Clinton had been a Republican, she would have been butchered and packaged by the "liberals" in double quick time.

What we actually see is the unedifying spectacle of them scrambling about in an attempt to excuse her conduct, because it seems probable that she will emerge as Democratic Party candidate for President of the US...... end of story really.

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 28 Oct 15 - 05:22 AM

You'd THINK that people would want to know the character of the person asking for their vote.....but it doesn't matter...she's running as the first woman for president and that, to them, is a qualifier, just like Obama was the first black....and then those same morons accuse others of being racist and misogynists if you point out to them that these aren't exactly 'honest' people who they should trust!!....and then top it off with "Dream on"!!

Just step back...just a moment, check it out..and take a picture.

Hey nice to see you, Ake...I was booted off for a while for telling them the truth....


GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Oct 15 - 06:16 AM

Yes that's a good point Sanity......logging off for the day ..keep well .... A

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: GUEST,gillymor
Date: 28 Oct 15 - 06:29 AM

Enjoy your fantasy, boys.

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 28 Oct 15 - 01:54 PM

Not much of a comeback....sorta like a capitulation, with a pout for an accompanying attitude....but no fantasy, Sillymore. Frankly, I'm astonished how much bullshit the 'two sides' of the same political coin, can ingest and spew forth, with out them getting yourselves tired!
It's far more satisfying, and beneficial to take that same angst, and interpret it into music!!...instead of delusional 'wings'.....left wing?...right wing??...I guess that's what it takes to make political bullshit fly!!!

GfS