Democratic Debate

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Maybe. 9 ET isn't incredibly late (except for y'all on the West Coast). People who are really into politics will probably watch it anyway, and people who are already apathetic will be apathetic.

I'm not convinced Bernie could dramatically shift things with a great debate performance anyway, even if the debate got Superbowl level ratings.

Isn't western time even earlier than eastern?

And Bernie has been doing rather well, I think he has a lot of popular appeal when people hear him.

On the other hand, the parties aren't bound to let popular vote decide their candidate, and even if he overtakes Clinton the party may choose to go with her anyways.

Originally posted by Surtur
Who said it was a woman thing? I simply used the "wife asks husband if she is fat" thing as an example.

We could switch it to "Guy asks wife if he is the best she has ever had in bed" if it makes you feel better about the genders.

Hilary sounds like a old hag. Bernie doing so much better.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Hilary sounds like a old hag.

It's interesting how many gendered insults you use on Hillary. Especially ones that have nothing to do with her policies or stances.

Hilary is lying through her teeth, she can't stop lying😂

Bernie and Martin just said he's a liar!

Whats new!😂

This is more of a shit show then the republican debate's😂

Hilary takes huge donations from wallstreet, and she is trying to say he doesn't take money from wallstreet.

Goldman Sachs have given her like over half a million dollars just on speaking fee's😂

She just admitted she wants to make the wealthy pay for everyones child care!!!😂

IS SHE ****ING INSANE???

ITS RICH PEOPLES FAULT AND RESPONSIBILITY TO PAY FOR OTHER PEOPLES KIDS!???

WHAT THE ****!!

**** HER!

Honestly don't give a shit about rich people. Really hard to feel sympathy for someone who could lose half of everything and still buy a private island.

Originally posted by Q99
It's interesting how many gendered insults you use on Hillary. Especially ones that have nothing to do with her policies or stances.

You should take a look at the comment section of places like The Federalist, Redtstate, or National Review.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Honestly don't give a shit about rich people. Really hard to feel sympathy for someone who could lose half of everything and still buy a private island.

Why the hell do they have to pay for other people child care?

Children are society's responsibility, and there are parents who are unfit to provide sufficient education or care to their children. That is not just unfair to the children, it also leads to greater problems for society down the line. It is beneficial to have well adjusted, well educated adults, and the upbringing of children is the main contributing factor of that.

Now, that means that everyone should contribute, via taxes, to ensure that all children have access to education, have enough food, and are taken care of. Rich people, who are blessed with most of the money and assets of a society should contribute their fair share to that tax pool (whether that is a progressive tax, that taxes the rich more for being able to partake more in a communities common goods, or a flat tax may be debatable, but currently, the very wealthiest do not pay their fair share due to exceptions and loop holes that their direct lobbying has created).

I assume that is basically Hillary's stance. Support children and tax the rich fairly.

If children are everyone's responsibility that means I should be allowed to slap the shit out of the little bastards when they annoy the hell out of me while in public.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
[b]If children are everyone's responsibility that means I should be allowed to slap the shit out of the little bastards when they annoy the hell out of me while in public. [/B]

Actually, because children are everyone's responsibility, is the reason why no one is allowed to slap the shit out of them.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Children are society's responsibility, and there are parents who are unfit to provide sufficient education or care to their children. That is not just unfair to the children, it also leads to greater problems for society down the line. It is beneficial to have well adjusted, well educated adults, and the upbringing of children is the main contributing factor of that.

Now, that means that everyone should contribute, via taxes, to ensure that all children have access to education, have enough food, and are taken care of. Rich people, who are blessed with most of the money and assets of a society should contribute their fair share to that tax pool (whether that is a progressive tax, that taxes the rich more for being able to partake more in a communities common goods, or a flat tax may be debatable, but currently, the very wealthiest do not pay their fair share due to exceptions and loop holes that their direct lobbying has created).

I assume that is basically Hillary's stance. Support children and tax the rich fairly.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
My point was mostly that "tell the audience what they want to hear" is standard politician-talk and no one in the election seems to be doing any different. Every candidate is pandering to a certain demographic, even Trump.

It's something a lot do, but I also think you could agree some do it a lot more then others.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Why the hell do they have to pay for other people child care?

I understand why on principle a lot of people oppose that kind of system. What I don't understand is the level of passion from people who aren't and never will be rich in defending the rights of rich people to keep their money and get richer. Like, it just doesn't make sense to me.

Look at all the lies of Hilary

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/jan/17/fact-checking-democratic-nbc-debate-south-carolina/

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/01/18/fact-check-fourth-democratic-debate-clinton-sanders-omalley/78949686/

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Look at all the lies of Hilary

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/jan/17/fact-checking-democratic-nbc-debate-south-carolina/

As far as I can see there's only one claim of Clinton's that they ruled as false, and the Clinton campaign said that she misspoke and corrected what she meant....

Um there are two links..

"In answering a question about police shootings of young black men, Clinton said, “One out of three African American men may well end up going to prison. That’s the statistic.”

But that statistic is outdated — a 2003 projection based on 2001 incarceration rate data. And since then, the incarceration rate for black males has declined.

The Clinton campaign did not get back to us when we asked for the source of her claim. However, she is likely referring to a 2013 report by the Sentencing Project that said, “If current trends continue, one of every three black American males born today can expect to go to prison in his lifetime, as can one of every six Latino males — compared to one of every seventeen white males.”

That report generated stories such as one in the Huffington Post that carried the headline, “1 In 3 Black Males Will Go To Prison In Their Lifetime, Report Warns.”

But the Sentencing Project, which advocates for “reforms in sentencing policy,” did not produce that 1-in-3 estimate. It was taken word for word from a 2011 report called “Addressing Racial Disparities in Incarceration.” And that 2011 report based its estimate on an August 2003 report by the Bureau of Justice Statistics.

The BJS report projected that 32.2% of black males born in 2001 “are expected to go to prison during their lifetime, if current incarceration rates remain unchanged.”

But the incarceration rate for black males has changed. In fact, it has declined since 2001.

The Bureau of Justice Statistics annually produces reports on incarceration rates by race. The incarceration rate for black males was 3,535 per 100,000, or 3.5%, in 2001. (See Table 16.) The most recent report put that figure at 2,724 per 100,000 black males, or 2.7%, in 2014. (See Table 10.)

This is not to discount Clinton’s larger point that black males are overrepresented in state and federal prisons.

The latest BJS report said, “On December 31, 2014, black males had higher imprisonment rates than prisoners of other races or Hispanic origin within every age group. Imprisonment rates for black males were 3.8 to 10.5 times greater at each age group than white males and 1.4 to 3.1 times greater than rates for Hispanic males.”

But the 1-in-3 statistic that she passed off as a fact is outdated and is not based on current incarceration rates."