• Please be aware we've switched the forums to their own URL. (again) You'll find the new website address to be www.steelernationforum.com Thanks
  • Please clear your private messages. Your inbox is close to being full.

Dem Presidential Debate

Bernie reminds me more of Frank Costanza

Frank%20Costanza%20110414.jpg
 
When asked to name their top enemy Hillary called out Republicans. Not ISIL, not Russia....not China. She called 50% of the US population her enemy. That's who we want leading our nation? That is going to reach across the aisle and work together to forward our nation?
 
Turd Ferguson said:
When asked to name their top enemy Hillary called out Republicans. Not ISIL, not Russia....not China. She called 50% of the US population her enemy. That's who we want leading our nation? That is going to reach across the aisle and work together to forward our nation?
Click to expand...

They appeal to the low-info voters who don't give a ****. You repeat a message loud enough and long enough, and that eventually will become the norm.
 
Hillary won the debate just because the others sucked so badly. Bernie Sanders handed it to her on a silver platter by jumping in to shut down any discussion of her honesty and character. The other three...who were they again? Done.

Their smug dismissive attitude about the email scandal and their open borders, free stuff for all illegals stance will kill either one of them in the general.

Of course it's hard to compete with "free everything", as we saw with Obama.
 
Trump should offer free air.
 
Jim Webb. The voice of sanity



“Do black lives matter, or do all lives matter? Let’s put that question to Senator Sanders,” a bespectacled Anderson Cooper asked.

“Black lives matter,” Sanders responded to uproarious cheers.

When it came time for former senator Jim Webb to follow his Democrats on the Black Lives Matter movement, he simply would not.

“As a president of the United States, every life in this country matters"

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/10/14/every-dem-but-webb-black-lives-matter.html

-------------------

Whites, Asians and Hispanics can all take a seat in the back of the Dem's bus
 
Spike said:
ha ha

Most U.S. voters not aware of Democratic debate

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Despite CNN's countdown clock and special live coverage, more than half of U.S. registered voters are not aware of the first debate between the candidates vying for the Democratic presidential nomination

The lack of awareness had little to do with party affiliation. Only 45 percent of voters registered as Democrats knew of the debate, featuring the candidates for their party's nomination in the 2016 election.

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/most-u-voters-not-aware-democratic-debate-reuters-195946814.html[/QUOTE

Honestly think it was by design. Keep the information as low as possible so Hillary can ascend to the throne.
Conspiracy? Nope, just the way the left will be playing the game for this election.
Click to expand...
 
What a great moment....may we be seeing the first signs of a Sanders-Clinton ticket?

 
factcheck weighs in:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...atic-debate/ar-AAfqLFX?li=AAa0dzB&ocid=HPCDHP

Summary

We found several falsehoods and misleading claims in the Democratic candidates’ first debate:

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton revised her earlier statement on the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal, claiming that she said she “hoped” it would be a “gold standard.” At the time, she said it was a gold standard.
Sen. Bernie Sanders claimed that his plan to lift the cap on income subject to Social Security taxes would extend the program’s finances and expand benefits. He neglected to mention that the new taxes would not be used to calculate benefits for those paying them, a break from historical practice.
Former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley claimed that “70 percent of us are earning the same, or less than we were 12 years ago.” Not true. Average weekly earnings for rank-and-file workers are up 5.8 percent.
Former Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee said that his state “had the biggest drop of the unemployment rate over my four budgets of all but one state.” Actually, four states had larger percentage point drops, and 10 states had larger percentage declines over his tenure.
Sanders claimed that African American youth unemployment was 51 percent, but that figure pertains to underemployment, which includes those working part-time and looking for full-time work.
Clinton claimed that “we lose 90 people a day from gun violence.” That’s true, but only a third of those deaths are from homicides.
Sanders wrongly said that the U.S. had “more wealth and income inequality than any other country.” The U.S. ranks 42nd in income inequality and 16th in terms of wealth held by the top 1 percent.
Clinton said that using a personal email account “was allowed by the State Department.” It was, but federal rules also required Clinton to turn over her emails before she left office. She did so nearly two years after she left.

Analysis

The Democratic candidates for president — former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Sen. Bernie Sanders, former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, former Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee and former Sen. Jim Webb — gathered in Las Vegas for their first debate on Oct. 13, hosted by CNN and Facebook.

Clinton on the Trans-Pacific Partnership

Clinton revised her earlier position on the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a proposed trade agreement between 12 Pacific Rim countries, claiming that she merely said she “hoped” it would be a “gold standard.” But her earlier support was more unequivocal.

The topic arose when debate moderator Anderson Cooper asked Clinton if some of her recent position changes were tied to political expediency, and he specifically referenced Clinton’s recent decision to oppose the TPP.

“You supported his trade deal dozens of times. You even called it the ‘gold standard.’ Now, suddenly, last week, you’re against it,” Cooper said. “Will you say anything to get elected?”

Clinton said that over the course of her career, her values and principles have remained consistent, though some positions have evolved as she “absorb new information.”

“You know, take the trade deal,” Clinton said. “I did say, when I was secretary of state, three years ago, that I hoped it would be the gold standard. It was just finally negotiated last week, and in looking at it, it didn’t meet my standards. My standards for more new, good jobs for Americans, for raising wages for Americans. And I want to make sure that I can look into the eyes of any middle-class American and say, ‘this will help raise your wages.’ And I concluded I could not.”

But Clinton didn’t add the “hoped it would be” qualifier when she made the initial comment about the TPP in 2012.

“This TPP sets the gold standard in trade agreements to open free, transparent, fair trade, the kind of environment that has the rule of law and a level playing field,” Clinton remarked in Adelaide, Australia, on Nov. 15, 2012. “And when negotiated, this agreement will cover 40 percent of the world’s total trade and build in strong protections for workers and the environment.”

Two days later, in Singapore, Clinton again sang the praises of the TPP.

“The so-called TPP will lower barriers, raise standards, and drive long-term growth across the region,” Clinton said. “It will cover 40 percent of the world’s total trade and establish strong protections for workers and the environment. Better jobs with higher wages and safer working conditions, including for women, migrant workers and others too often in the past excluded from the formal economy will help build Asia’s middle class and rebalance the global economy.”

We should note that Clinton’s comments were made, in part, to promote the administration’s ongoing negotiations of the TPP.

Clinton tempered her language in support of the TPP after leaving her post as secretary of state, and moving toward a run for the presidency. As she wrote in her 2014 book “Hard Choices“: “Because TPP negotiations are still ongoing, it makes sense to reserve judgment until we can evaluate the final proposed agreement. It’s safe to say that the TPP won’t be perfect — no deal negotiated among a dozen countries ever will be — but its higher standards, if implemented and enforced, should benefit American businesses and workers.”

Earlier this month, Clinton took a formal position against the TPP.

“I still believe in the goal of a strong and fair trade agreement in the Pacific as part of a broader strategy both at home and abroad, just as I did when I was Secretary of State,” Clinton said in a released statement. “I appreciate the hard work that President Obama and his team put into this process and recognize the strides they made. But the bar here is very high and, based on what I have seen, I don’t believe this agreement has met it.”

Clinton is free to change her mind based on “new information,” as she put it. And some of the details of the trade deal, which was negotiated in secret, likely changed over time. But Clinton wasn’t qualifying her support for the plan back in 2012. She didn’t say she “hoped” it would be a “gold standard.” She said it was a gold standard.

Sanders and Social Security

Sanders claimed Social Security’s finances could be extended and benefits expanded by simply taxing incomes above the current cap of $118,500.

Sanders: And the way you expand [Social Security] is by lifting the cap on taxable incomes so that you do away with the absurdity of a millionaire paying the same amount into the system as somebody making $118,000. You do that, Social Security is solvent until 2061 and you can expand benefits.

Sanders is referring to legislation he has sponsored, the “Social Security Expansion Act.” It would increase future benefit payments and partially pay for that by applying employment and self-employment payroll tax not only to earnings up to the current cap, but also over $250,000, and by levying a new 6.2 percent tax on investment income over $200,000 for a single person or $250,000 for married couples filing jointly, with no upper limit on the amount to be taxed.

The chief actuary of the Social Security system analyzed the latest version of Sanders’ proposal last March, and concluded that it would indeed extend the life of the Social Security trust funds to 2065 (not 2061).

But Sanders failed to mention two key points.

First, those subjected to the higher taxes would see no benefit from them. Unlike current payroll taxes, the new levies would not be used as a basis for calculating future benefits for those paying them, a sharp break from historical practice.

Second, benefits would eventually have to be cut anyway.

The actuary estimated that under current law the system could pay only 77 percent of scheduled benefits starting in 2033. Under the Sanders plan to tax the affluent, expanded benefits could be paid for 32 years longer, but then Social Security could support only 88 percent of promised benefits.

O’Malley’s Mangled Wage Statistic — Again

O’Malley repeated a dubious talking point that we’ve criticized before:

O’Malley: Our middle class is shrinking. Our poor families are becoming poorer, and 70 percent of us are earning the same, or less than we were 12 years ago.

As we reported in June, O’Malley is citing outdated figures that don’t reflect a spike in real wages and earnings that has taken place over the past year or so. He bases the claim on a study by the liberal Economic Policy Institute that was current only through 2014.

Using the most current figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, “real” (inflation-adjusted) average weekly earnings of rank-and-file, non-supervisory workers were 2.2 percent higher in August than they were a year earlier, and 5.8 percent higher than they were in August 2003 — the 12-year period O’Malley specified.
Chafee and Rhode Island Unemployment

In his introductory remarks, Chafee claimed that Rhode Island had a larger drop in the unemployment rate than every state but Nevada while he was governor. That’s not correct for his total time in office.

Chafee: As governor, I came in at the depths of the recession and we turned my state around. Rhode Island had the biggest drop of the unemployment rate over my four budgets of all but one state. It happens to be Nevada, where we’re having this debate.

We contacted a spokeswoman for Chafee’s campaign to get an exact timeframe for his claim, but we didn’t hear back.

Rhode Island’s unemployment rate was 11.2 percent in January 2011 when Chafee came into office, and it was 6.5 percent in January 2015 when he left office. That’s a decline of 4.7 percentage points and, perhaps more important, a percentage decrease of 42 percent.

Nevada’s unemployment rate dropped 6.5 percentage points over that time period. But California, North Carolina and Florida, with declines of 5 percentage points, 4.9 percentage points and 4.8 percentage points, respectively, also had larger declines than Rhode Island. So four states, not one, had larger drops based solely on percentage points.

Furthermore, when looking at the percentage decline, which may be a better way of comparing declines between states, 10 states, including Nevada, had a larger percentage decrease in the unemployment rate, and two states had a percentage decrease roughly the same as Rhode Island’s.

Sanders Exaggerates Youth Unemployment

As he has done manytimesbefore, Sanders overstated the unemployment rate for black and Hispanic youths.

Sanders: African American youth unemployment is 51 percent. Hispanic youth unemployment is 36 percent. It seems to me that instead of building more jails and providing more incarceration, maybe — just maybe — we should be putting money into education and jobs for our kids.

We have written about this once before. Sanders gets his figures from a June report by the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute. But the report clearly labels those figures as the rate of underemployment, not unemployment.

The report said “51.3 percent of young black high school graduates are underemployed, compared with 36.1 percent of young Hispanic high school grads and 33.8 percent of white high school grads.” That was the average for a 12-month period, ending in March.

EPI says it arrived at those numbers by using the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ broadest measure of underemployment, known as the U-6, for high school graduates ages 17 to 20 who are not enrolled in further schooling. The U-6 includes not just those officially counted as unemployed, but also discouraged workers, those marginally attached to the labor market and part-time workers who want to be working more.

BLS does not publish data for the 17-to-20 age group, so we could not verify EPI’s report. It does, however, provide data for high school graduates ages 16 to 24 years old who are not enrolled in further schooling. In September, the unemployment rate for this age group was 24 percent for African Americans, 11.6 percent for Hispanics and 10.7 percent for whites.

Clinton on Gun Violence

In talking about the need for stronger gun control, Clinton said: “I think that we have to look at the fact that we lose 90 people a day from gun violence. This has gone on too long and it’s time the entire country stood up against the NRA.” Annual gun deaths do average about 90 people a day, but only a third of those are homicides.

Most gun deaths are suicides — a violent act, but not a crime, as some voters may think Clinton’s claim implied.

According to the most recent figures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there were a total of 33,636 firearm deaths in 2013. That’s 92 per day for the year. Sixty-three percent of them, or 21,175, were suicides. Homicides totaled 11,208, and the rest were unintentional discharges (505), legal intervention/war (467) and undetermined (281).

Sanders Wrong on U.S. Inequality Ranking

Sanders doubled down on a bogus claim that the income and wealth gaps between the affluent and the poor are larger in the United States than anywhere else:

Sanders: We should not be the country that has … more wealth and income inequality than any other country.

This is simply false.

When we first criticized Sanders for a similar claim back on May 28, he at least qualified it by saying U.S. inequality was the widest of any “major” country. As we said in May, that’s true only if Sanders excludes nations such as Russia, Turkey and Brazil from his definition of “major.”

But in the debate, Sanders substituted “any” for “major,” and turned what we charitably called an exaggeration into a flat-out falsehood.

We found that the U.S. ranked 42nd in income inequality using the “Gini index,” a widely used measure of inequality, according to the World Bank.

And as for wealth, the U.S. ranked 16th in the share of wealth held by the richest 1 percent, out of the 46 economies studied. Russia, Turkey, Egypt and Brazil were among those whose top 1 percent held more of their nations’ wealth. That was according to the 2014 “Global Wealth Databook.”

Clinton’s Emails

When asked about her unusual email arrangement as secretary of state, Clinton said, “What I did was allowed by the State Department.” That’s not the full story.

Clinton conducted government business exclusively using a personal email account (hdr22@clintonemail.com), and those emails were stored on a private server.

As we have written before, the State Department and the Clinton campaign have cited a National Archives and Records Administration rule issued in 2009 that said federal agencies that allow the use of personal emails must preserve them “in the appropriate agency recordkeeping system.” So personal emails were allowed.

But federal rules also required Clinton to preserve her work emails “at the end of the Secretary’s tenure or sooner if necessary.” She did not turn over copies of her emails to the State Department until Dec. 5, 2014 — nearly two years after she left office on Feb. 1, 2013.

Also, whether the State Department allowed it or not, Clinton’s decision “to conduct all e-mail correspondence through a private e-mail network, using a non-.gov address, is inconsistent with long-established policies and practices under the Federal Records Act and NARA regulations governing all federal agencies,” according to congressional testimony of Jason R. Baron, a former director of litigation at the National Archives, who is now a lawyer at Drinker Biddle.

— by Eugene Kiely, Brooks Jackson, Lori Robertson, Robert Farley and D’Angelo Gore
Click to expand...
 
Trying to figure out who Sanders sounds like, is it Alan Arken?
 
"When a mother has a baby, she should stay home with that baby," said Sen. Bernie Sanders at the Democratic debate.
Click to expand...

Can you imagine if a Republican said that?

Aside from that, it's another feel good Dem trope with unintended consequences:

https://reason.com/blog/2015/10/14/sanders-when-a-mother-has-a-baby-she-sho

Here's the thing: What Bernie Sanders meant to say in yesterday's CNN debate was that he believes the federal government should make it easier for women to choose to stay home with their newborns, if they so desire.

But here's what Bernie Sanders actually said:

Every other major country on Earth, every one, including some small countries, say that when a mother has a baby, she should stay home with that baby.

Which is what we call a Kinsley gaffe—where a politician accidentally reveals a truth he did not intend to admit.

Because as well-intentioned as family leave policies mandated by the federal government might be (and they are undeniably wildly well-intentioned), there's a negative consequence that doesn't get talked about too much: There can be a blurry line between government subsidizing something—whether though regulation, transfer payments, or tax breaks—and requiring that thing.

A nudge can become a shove if you're not careful.

Take generous Germany, for instance, where a good chunk of maternity leave is actually mandatory—not just for employers to provide, but for women to take:

By default, expectant moms are expected to stay out of the workplace six weeks before giving birth, and many don’t even know that they have a right to keep working past that deadline if they state it explicitly to their employer. They are not allowed to work during the two months after giving birth; this portion of the maternity leave is mandatory to protect women against pressure from an employer.

After that, she has a year of leave available to her at 65 percent of her salary and job protection for another three years. At least partially contrary to the original goal to make life better for working moms, however, the policy seems to have spawned a constrained and judgmental culture around working women's parenting choices:

The amount of maternity leave available also seems to put pressure on German women to stay home longer than might be good for their careers. A German friend returned to work before the first year of government-subsidized parental leave was up and was frowned upon when she took her eight-month-old son to daycare....

Being able to take a lot of time off lowers the pressure on society to create adequate child-care options that the government has guaranteed by law but that are nevertheless still not available in many German cities.

(Feel free to substitute "lowers the incentive for companies to get into childcare business" at the top of that last paragraph to get the same effect in a more market-oriented scenario.)

Advocates of federal family leave policies, like Sanders, tend to lean progressive. Which means they need to grapple with the fact that pushing for family leave can wind up wrenching open that wage and opportunity gaps they're so desperately trying to close.

In countries with big maternity benefits, mothers are (often) more likely to stay in the workforce, but are also more likely to get pulled off the management track and into dead-end jobs. The New York Times tackled this issue in a story last May pointing to several new studies that look at the before-and-after in countries that have increased benefits.

In Chile, a law requires employers to provide working mothers with child care. One result? Women are paid less.

In Spain, a policy to give parents of young children the right to work part-time has led to a decline in full-time, stable jobs available to all women—even those who are not mothers.

Elsewhere in Europe, generous maternity leaves have meant that women are much less likely than men to become managers or achieve other high-powered positions at work.

The Spanish example is particularly illuminating:

Spain passed a law in 1999 giving workers with children younger than 7 the right to ask for reduced hours without fear of being laid off. Those who took advantage of it were nearly all women.

Over the next decade, companies were 6 percent less likely to hire women of childbearing age compared with men, 37 percent less likely to promote them and 45 percent more likely to dismiss them, according to a study by Daniel Fernández-Kranz, an economist at IE Business School in Madrid, and Núria Rodríguez-Planas, an economist at City University of New York, Queens College. The probability of women of childbearing age not being employed climbed 20 percent. Another result: Women were more likely to be in less stable, short-term contract jobs, which are not required to provide such benefits.

In general, advocates for increased family leave are a little more circumspect than Sanders, typically employing gender neutral language and rhetoric about choice.

But all those applause lines about the wage gap—which are admittedly more Hillary's stock in trade than Bernie's—are too often at odds with the applause lines about the empowering potential of maternity benefits.
 
oneforthebus said:
But here's what Bernie Sanders actually said:

Every other major country on Earth, every one, including some small countries, say that when a mother has a baby, she should stay home with that baby.
Click to expand...
Bernie just lost the women vote. Democrats want women to kill dey babies at Planned Parenthood and sell the parts.
 
Hillary will be the next President, so I suggest moving on with other things in your lives for the next 8 years.
 
21STEELERS21 said:
Hillary will be the next President, so I suggest moving on with other things in your lives for the next 8 years.
Click to expand...

can I get an autographed copy of your best-selling book when it hits the shelves?
 
21STEELERS21 said:
Hillary will be the next President, so I suggest moving on with other things in your lives for the next 8 years.
Click to expand...

21, we get that you're a fool and have a non-ending hard-on for Hildebeast. This bewilders me. It has since she's become a would-be candidate back in 06 and 07. WHAT is it that a Democrat sees in her that makes them say "I want her to lead this great nation"?

Please, I'm asking you....can you give us specifics? Point to her accomplishments that validate her ability to be a leader, whether it be as a lawyer, First Lady, Secretary of State. What successes, as a leader, leave you lying in bed at night having wet dreams over her?

There's no doubt I dislike the Democratic party. But I COULD vote for Jim Webb. He's done things, he has accomplishments. I cannot fathom what people see in Hillary, save for the fact that the Clintons have become "sort-of" Kennedys to Liberals - it doesn't matter what they have done or what they could never accomplish, it's just the name.

That's what's going on here with her as well, IMHO. It's fan worship. Because God knows, there's no substance.
 
12115592_10156362903770019_309023124165613158_n.jpg
 
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/competent

She is competent. A President can't do much on their own, she will bring bright people in to run the government.
She is likely to run it better than anyone has and might even reduce taxes thru efficiency.

When she was Senator of New York, she went to one of the poorer areas of New York, the Adirondacks, and she
got small businesses assistance with using the internet. It helped my cousins restaurant significantly and boosted
tourism. The Clintons see problems, apply intelligence and work toward solutions. Both actually have worked well
with Republicans. Most Republican Senators that served with her, have good things to say.
 
21STEELERS21 said:
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/competent

She is competent. A President can't do much on their own, she will bring bright people in to run the government.
She is likely to run it better than anyone has and might even reduce taxes thru efficiency.

When she was Senator of New York, she went to one of the poorer areas of New York, the Adirondacks, and she
got small businesses assistance with using the internet. It helped my cousins restaurant significantly and boosted
tourism. The Clintons see problems, apply intelligence and work toward solutions. Both actually have worked well
with Republicans. Most Republican Senators that served with her, have good things to say.
Click to expand...

That's her big accomplishment? Wow.

Hillary will reduce taxes? Does she have any record whatsoever of introducing, suggesting or supporting legislation designed to increase government efficiency and reduce taxes, or is that just a fantasy of yours?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top