Race tightens: Clinton, Sanders clash on guns, health care

[chuckd]

<<snip>>

.....according to something called the "Quinnipiac poll" Who ever heard of Quinnipiac University or their poll before? Is it just some jocks sitting around a room looking for something to do?

,,snip>>

You seemingly consider yourself up to date on US politics and you have never heard of the Quinnipiac Poll?

[JetsetBkk]

A hectoring old shrew caught way too many times with her hand in the cookie jar. The Clintons just can't keep from shaking the money tree, whether it's deducting their used underwear donations from their taxes, turning $1000 into $100,000 in cattle futures (you are what you eat, you old cow, Hillary), or book deals and speaking fees from the big banks she claims to war against.

Do you feel better now you've got that off your chest?

Well, yes. I do.

Me too.

[TPI]

Just think for a minute, a republican President? The Donald, Ted, Mark.......? The first is a "Hukster", the second is an evangelical with a very dubious claim to citizenship and the third is just too young for the job! The reasonable men in the pack have been filtered out by the media, who would love to have a clown of some sort in the White House as a ratings bonanza!

The Dems have an older woman with a lot of experience and an older man who has spent nearly 30 years in the jungle of Washington! Logic would say that the dems were a shoo in, but, as only 20-25% of Americans vote who knows what wild and wooley candidate will get up? This is the electorate that voted "W" in for two terms!!!!

[chuckd]

Just think for a minute, a republican President? The Donald, Ted, Mark.......? The first is a "Hukster", the second is an evangelical with a very dubious claim to citizenship and the third is just too young for the job! The reasonable men in the pack have been filtered out by the media, who would love to have a clown of some sort in the White House as a ratings bonanza!

The Dems have an older woman with a lot of experience and an older man who has spent nearly 30 years in the jungle of Washington! Logic would say that the dems were a shoo in, but, as only 20-25% of Americans vote who knows what wild and wooley candidate will get up? This is the electorate that voted "W" in for two terms!!!!

The Democrats have an older woman who studied at the feet of Saul Alynsky followed by over 30 years of scandals and lying who is unable to provide one single accomplishment she has ever accomplished on her own.

The only thing she has been successful at is marrying well and trying to keep her husband's pants zipped up, or when she couldn't do that, covered up.

Bernie is yet another case of one of those infamous old white men all you folks keep railing about. He's been a professional politician all his life, having run as an Independent Socialist with a background in Communism. He is well past his use by date.

The other electorate voted in "O" for two terms. Doesn't speak well for either side then, does it.

[willyumiii]

It was a very good debate.

People discussing important issues like informed adults.

No cheap shots, no back stabbing, even support and smiles for each other's ideas and opinions.

Unlike the debates of the other party that seem more like a reality show with children throwing tantrums and avoiding the real issues.

If Americans are really fed up with the corporate corruption of the American government, Bernie has it.

If not, it is Hillary's..

The reality show host and his party are not really in the running.

[lannarebirth]

Hillary Blames Bernie for an Old Clintonite Hustle, and That's a Rotten Shame

Robert Scheer

The Clintons have no shame, that much you can count on. That stupefying arrogance was on full display in the most recent presidential campaign debate when Hillary Clinton countered Bernie Sanders' charge that she was compromised by her close ties to Goldman Sachs and other rapacious Wall Street interests with the retort:

Sen. Sanders, you're the only one on this stage that voted to deregulate the financial markets in 2000, ... to make the SEC and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission no longer able to regulate swaps and derivatives, which were one of the main causes of the collapse in '08.

Hillary knows that the disastrous legislation, the Commodity Futures Modernization Act (CFMA), had nothing to do with Sanders and everything to do with then-President Bill Clinton, who devoted his presidency to sucking up to Wall Street. Clinton signed this bill into law as a lame-duck president, ensuring his wife would have massive Wall Street contributions for her Senate run.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-scheer/hillary-blames-bernie-for_b_9018360.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

Edited January 19, 2016 by lannarebirth

[mopar71]

At that time, it was Obama vs Romney. I was siding with Obama then, and I was proved right.

Maybe as far as who won the election, but you were proved very wrong as far as his presidency. Obama has been voted the WORST president since WW2 by the American people and he deserves it.

Which American people? Which poll? Which vote?

Links please, thank you.

The truth is he was voted 5th best...

https://twitter.com/SenTedCruz/status/446748697666129920/photo/1

[mopar71]

This has got to Bern...I mean burn...

Since when do Democrats attack each other over healthcare?

[Ulysses G.]

.The truth is he was voted 5th best...

https://twitter.com/SenTedCruz/status/446748697666129920/photo/1

Well, when you put it like THAT.

[boomerangutang]

Just think for a minute, a republican President? The Donald, Ted, Mark.......? The first is a "Hukster", the second is an evangelical with a very dubious claim to citizenship and the third is just too young for the job! The reasonable men in the pack have been filtered out by the media, who would love to have a clown of some sort in the White House as a ratings bonanza!

The Dems have an older woman with a lot of experience and an older man who has spent nearly 30 years in the jungle of Washington! Logic would say that the dems were a shoo in, but, as only 20-25% of Americans vote who knows what wild and wooley candidate will get up? This is the electorate that voted "W" in for two terms!!!!

The Democrats have an older woman who studied at the feet of Saul Alynsky followed by over 30 years of scandals and lying who is unable to provide one single accomplishment she has ever accomplished on her own.

The only thing she has been successful at is marrying well and trying to keep her husband's pants zipped up, or when she couldn't do that, covered up.

Bernie is yet another case of one of those infamous old white men all you folks keep railing about. He's been a professional politician all his life, having run as an Independent Socialist with a background in Communism. He is well past his use by date.

The other electorate voted in "O" for two terms. Doesn't speak well for either side then, does it.

Well, it's good to hear what silliness arch conservatives spew about the two front-running Dem candidates. At least the Dems can get an idea of what sort of whacko aspersions they may have to counter in their debates. The people who sling such mud are probably the same folks who don't believe glaciers are receding worldwide and that the earth was formed 3,000-something years ago and a white-bearded man in the sky created everything and crafted all life forms (from mud, duct tape and rubber bands?). And you got to slip the word 'Communism' in there in relation to Bernie. Slick job Chuck.

[ttthailand]

Bernie Sanders is the only honest one in the entire race, left and right. Feel the Bern !

[boomerangutang]

Bernie Sanders is the only honest one in the entire race, left and right. Feel the Bern !

....and the only one who's not cowed by people who get very rich by handling other peoples' money. Statistic just out yesterday by Oxfam: The richest 1% own more than everyone else combined.

Oxfam research in early 2014 found that the 85 richest individuals in the world have as much wealth as the poorest half of the global population. Now, early 2016, the number is in the 30's, and 17 are Americans. And that's just wealth they declare. There's likely just as much wealth they hide away. That rips of their countries because they don't pay a fair share of taxes.

In every study, the rich are getting richer and the poor poorer, day by day. Bernie is the only candidate who even mentions such inequities, and he has tangible plans to try and fend off the gross imbalance. Yes, it may turn some billionaires away from the US, and/or compel them to better hide their money and gold. So be it. Some people, will be responsible, others won't. You can't change human nature.

[mopar71]

Bernie is yet another case of one of those infamous old white men all you folks keep railing about. He's been a professional politician all his life, having run as an Independent Socialist with a background in Communism. He is well past his use by date.

And you got to slip the word 'Communism' in there in relation to Bernie. Slick job Chuck.

If you know anything about Bernie's past, the word Communism can't be omitted...

Bernie Sanders’ radical past: How the Vermont firebrand started wearing a suit and gave up on taking over big companies

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/bernie-sanders-radical-past-how-the-vermont-230255076.html

[boomerangutang]

If billionaires paid 1% of their hidden wealth in a sort of ww tax, that would free up up over $50 billion.

The worldwide estimate of costs to provide basic education for little kids: 37 billion.

An estimate for providing basic health services dealing with maternal health, immunization, testing and monitoring major diseases like HIV/AIDS, TB and malaria, is about $25 billion. The numbers don't quite add up, but you see the connection. If super rich people could be a tad less hyper-selfish, and donate 1% of their wealth to helping others, it would do a lot of good - assuming the money was well-administered, which is a BIG assumption.

source for some of the stats

With any one of the Republican candidates at the steering wheel, things like providing basic services for disadvantaged and poor would take a back seat.

[chuckd]

If billionaires paid 1% of their hidden wealth in a sort of ww tax, that would free up up over $50 billion.

The worldwide estimate of costs to provide basic education for little kids: 37 billion.

An estimate for providing basic health services dealing with maternal health, immunization, testing and monitoring major diseases like HIV/AIDS, TB and malaria, is about $25 billion. The numbers don't quite add up, but you see the connection. If super rich people could be a tad less hyper-selfish, and donate 1% of their wealth to helping others, it would do a lot of good - assuming the money was well-administered, which is a BIG assumption.

source for some of the stats

With any one of the Republican candidates at the steering wheel, things like providing basic services for disadvantaged and poor would take a back seat.

Get your head out of the sand. Raising $50 Billion by taxing the rich is a drop in the bucket to what Bernie wants to impose on the American people.

Just in case you slept through the recent news releases, here is one from yesterday.

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

Here's a list of Bernie Sanders' $19.6 trillion in tax hikes

By PHILIP KLEIN

1/19/16 12:01 AM

Sen. Bernie Sanders' populist message has put him in the position to potentially win Democratic nomination contests in both Iowa and New Hampshire, shaking the sense of inevitability that has surrounded Hillary Clinton. As the socialist senator from Vermont gains traction in polls, Clinton has more aggressively attacked his policy proposals, forcing Sanders to release details on how he would pay for his ambitious economic and social agenda.

Taken together, Sanders is proposing $19.6 trillion in new taxes over a decade, according to an analysis by the Washington Examiner, of which $14 trillion would come from his healthcare plan alone. To put that in perspective, the Congressional Budget Office projects that federal revenues over the next 10 years will be a total of $41.6 trillion, meaning that Sanders would raise taxes by 47 percent over current levels.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/heres-a-list-of-bernie-sanders-19.6-trillion-in-tax-hikes/article/2580846

Welcome to Bernie''s own particular brand of Communist Socialism

[lostboy]

Bernie is yet another case of one of those infamous old white men all you folks keep railing about. He's been a professional politician all his life, having run as an Independent Socialist with a background in Communism. He is well past his use by date.

And you got to slip the word 'Communism' in there in relation to Bernie. Slick job Chuck.

If you know anything about Bernie's past, the word Communism can't be omitted...

Bernie Sanders’ radical past: How the Vermont firebrand started wearing a suit and gave up on taking over big companies

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/bernie-sanders-radical-past-how-the-vermont-230255076.html

American Ban Nok. Gotta love 'em. Think that anyone to the left of G. Gordon Liddy is a Socialist and when they really want to get nasty, they call the a Communist. Perhaps you might tell us what actually comprises a Communist and exactly what threat are they to the US? Is this a new McCarthyism that you are trying to foster? Get people scared of Reds under the Beds again.

Someone who fights for social and economic equality and justice is vilified in America. Why? Heaven help that person if they happen to be a minority, then the game is really on. I really wonder just how many American's subscribe to the harsh, cruel and un-caring Wealthy Elites who control the US. Keep up or be left behind. That's the clarion call of the Investor Class who take full advantage of inherited wealth, exclusive private schools and their access to power to ensure regulations that favour their interests and widen the wealth inequality gap.

Keep up or die! We don't care. We've covered ourselves. We have guns and will fight redistribution and social justice to the last poorly paid, poorly educated youth that we recruit to our cause.

[boomerangutang]

$19.6 trillion in new tax hikes? I don't believe it for a moment. It's soooo easy to tweak numbers for someone or a group with an agenda. If anything, it shows how Bernie is being taken seriously. The 19.6 number is probably off by several zeros. I did, however, hear him say in the debate how he would broaden health care to make it available to every American (like UK, Sweden, Denmark, Swiss, Norwegians, kiwis, etc do for their citizens.) He said to do that, he would propose increasing medicaid taxes by 2%. The current program by Obama has brought 17 million more people health care. That's good, but not quite 'universal.'

One big difference between what Bernie proposes and what Republicans mention, well there are actually 2 big differences:

A. Bernie is specific. Republicans just wave their arms and make sweeping statements ("Obama's no good" or "we're gonna nuke the Arabs.")

B. When Bernie makes a suggestion (like universal health care), he proposes how it could be paid for. In contrast, when Republicans make their statements, they're not concerned for how it gets paid. They think money grows on the trees lining Wall Street. They have no problems with over-spending.

Reagan was famous for claiming he would lower taxes. He did lower taxes initially, but later, when he got a dose of realism, he was compelled to raise taxes a lot more than he had earlier lowered them. Many people think Reagan was a lower taxes / less government guy. The opposite is true. Look at the trillion he allocated for Star Wars (4 trillion in today's dollars). What did it produce? Absolutely nothing. Romney/Ryan said they wanted to give the military a lot more funding than the military asked for. What?!

During the campaign, Bush said, "read my lips, no new taxes." His opponent said "my opponent won't admit he will raise taxes, but if he gets in power, he will." The opponent was ridiculed as a pansy. Bush Sr. won the election and guess what? New and higher taxes came rolling in as predicted.

American legislators are abysmal at trying to balance a check book. Bernie is at least honest enough to put forth proposals for how he would get gov't to pay for things. Republicans don't even attempt to do that. They'd rather talk about putting giant walls along the US's border with Mexico, or dropping A-bombs on Middle Eastern villages. It gets a lot more traction from redneck voters (about 4% of the electorate), ....and it gets headlines in the next day's newspapers.

Edited January 20, 2016 by boomerangutang

[casualbiker]

Bernie is yet another case of one of those infamous old white men all you folks keep railing about. He's been a professional politician all his life, having run as an Independent Socialist with a background in Communism. He is well past his use by date.

And you got to slip the word 'Communism' in there in relation to Bernie. Slick job Chuck.

If you know anything about Bernie's past, the word Communism can't be omitted...

Bernie Sanders’ radical past: How the Vermont firebrand started wearing a suit and gave up on taking over big companies

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/bernie-sanders-radical-past-how-the-vermont-230255076.html

I note it doesn't say communist in that article. He certainly visited communist countries but many people in office have. Many Americans visited Nicaragua, Afghanistan, Cuba etc mainly to provide guns and other military equipment funded in part by the US taxpayers and if the rumours and stories are true also by the Asian and South American drug trade. Actually after reading that I think many would reconsider and actually vote for him.. He has some ideas that won't work so well in the US and most people with a brain know as President he wouldn't achieve them but other things. By God and everything holy, he can achieve so much for the ordinary American. (I mentioned God so it kinda makes me a Republican)

[chuckd]

$19.6 trillion in new tax hikes? I don't believe it for a moment. It's soooo easy to tweak numbers for someone or a group with an agenda. If anything, it shows how Bernie is being taken seriously. The 19.6 number is probably off by several zeros. I did, however, hear him say in the debate how he would broaden health care to make it available to every American (like UK, Sweden, Denmark, Swiss, Norwegians, kiwis, etc do for their citizens.) He said to do that, he would propose increasing medicaid taxes by 2%. The current program by Obama has brought 17 million more people health care. That's good, but not quite 'universal.'

One big difference between what Bernie proposes and what Republicans mention, well there are actually 2 big differences:

A. Bernie is specific. Republicans just wave their arms and make sweeping statements ("Obama's no good" or "we're gonna nuke the Arabs.")

B. When Bernie makes a suggestion (like universal health care), he proposes how it could be paid for. In contrast, when Republicans make their statements, they're not concerned for how it gets paid. They think money grows on the trees lining Wall Street. They have no problems with over-spending.

Reagan was famous for claiming he would lower taxes. He did lower taxes initially, but later, when he got a dose of realism, he was compelled to raise taxes a lot more than he had earlier lowered them. Many people think Reagan was a lower taxes / less government guy. The opposite is true. Look at the trillion he allocated for Star Wars (4 trillion in today's dollars). What did it produce? Absolutely nothing. Romney/Ryan said they wanted to give the military a lot more funding than the military asked for. What?!

During the campaign, Bush said, "read my lips, no new taxes." His opponent said "my opponent won't admit he will raise taxes, but if he gets in power, he will." The opponent was ridiculed as a pansy. Bush Sr. won the election and guess what? New and higher taxes came rolling in as predicted.

American legislators are abysmal at trying to balance a check book. Bernie is at least honest enough to put forth proposals for how he would get gov't to pay for things. Republicans don't even attempt to do that. They'd rather talk about putting giant walls along the US's border with Mexico, or dropping A-bombs on Middle Eastern villages. It gets a lot more traction from redneck voters (about 4% of the electorate), ....and it gets headlines in the next day's newspapers.

The estimate of $19.6 Trillion is provided by the Congressional Budget Office.

From my original post above...

"To put that in perspective, the Congressional Budget Office projects that federal revenues over the next 10 years will be a total of $41.6 trillion, meaning that Sanders would raise taxes by 47 percent over current levels."

[mopar71]

Well, it's good to hear what silliness arch conservatives spew about the two front-running Dem candidates.

The two front-runners? They also happen to be the bottom two Dem candidates. Whoever ends up with the nomination can claim to have finished second to last. Sad.

...and, no, that O'Molly character doesn't count anymore than the empty podium reserved for Biden in the first debate does.

[mopar71]

I would have sworn that Vanity Fair was very pro-Clinton. They do not paint a rosy picture of her campaign...

Hillary Clinton Gets One More Shot to Take Down Sanders

The prime-time gathering will air Monday at nine P.M., a huge change from the three debates that the Democratic National Committee scheduled on inconvenient weekend nights.

... liberal women, her core constituency, [to] question whether they can support a candidate who attempted to discredit women who accused Bill Clinton of sexual assault. (Sanders, who enjoys unexpectedly high support among the young, female voters that Clinton was counting on, has also raised her husband’s infidelities on the campaign trail.) Clinton’s standing in the polls has since dropped in Iowa, where she and Sanders are neck-and-neck, and plummeted in New Hampshire, where Sanders is ahead by double digits.

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/01/hillary-clinton-debate-iowa-sanders

[boomerangutang]

Well, it's good to hear what silliness arch conservatives spew about the two front-running Dem candidates.

The two front-runners? They also happen to be the bottom two Dem candidates. Whoever ends up with the nomination can claim to have finished second to last. Sad.

...and, no, that O'Molly character doesn't count anymore than the empty podium reserved for Biden in the first debate does.

Mopar, I don't understand your post. I sense you're trying to cast aspersions at the Dems, but the reasoning escapes me. '....bottom two Dem candidates?' '....finished second to last?' What does that mean?

[Jingthing]

He's trying to make a big deal about the fact that there are relatively few democrats running this year in their primary relative to the republicans.

But the reasons are obvious. First, the general consensus coming in that it is Hillary's turn and that feeling is still strong, but weakened. Warren would have run if Hillary hadn't, for example. Also, kind of more serious, the democratic bench is thin.

[willyumiii]

They are committing suicide. A majority of Americans oppose stricter gun control. CNN

A majority opposes Obamacare. RCP

WE are the majority. WE are the mainstream. THEY are bit players. THEY are the far-out wacko left fringe. THEY should move to Europe.

Cheers.

The majority of Americans voted for and elected Obama twice.

They support what he has done.

Most Americans would give him a third term if he could run for one.

It's the losing party that has a problem with everything he does.

Childish, sore losers.

[willyumiii]

This is pretty spot on for what it says.

But there was much more to the debate, and many good responses to what is mentioned here.

For the big picture, you should watch the entire debate and form your own opinion.

It is on Youtube.