2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumWas last night's Town Hall biased? I think so, but what do you think?
Our good friend Deny and Shred actually took the time and effort last night to dictate each of the questions given to our 2 lead candidates. He presented them in a thread of mine last night with the question, "Do you think this was fair?" So I'm placing DaS's post here for all of us to digest and then discuss.
Questions to Sanders
Host: Busy Day?
Host: You were not sure if there was an appetite for a discussion of rich vs. poor when you began the campaign. Are you surprised by the success of Feel The Bern?
H: You centered you campaign on income inequality. President Obama said today you do Not have the Luxury of focusing on just one thing as President. Are you up to the whole job?
Woman 1: Your detractors call you a Socialist. Explain so I shouldn’t be worried.
Woman 2: Nurse : Medicare has a reputation for having problems. Why would people support your program?
Host :To be clear - you will raise taxes to do this (medicare for all program)?
Man 1 : How will you fund your programs?
Host: You paying for these programs is punishment. You are amassing the biggest government ever?
Host : Is the era of big government back with a President Sanders?
Man 2: Given Washginton gridlock, what will you do to cure gridlock to implement your initiatives?
Woman 3: Given the PP and Human Rights Campaign endorsements, how will you be more effective as president than a woman?
View Hillary Ad: Is Sec Clinton better prepared than you?
Host: You referred to Dick Cheney responding to Clinton's experience. Not highbrow of you.
Woman 4: How will you establish better gun control and mental health initiatives?
Host: Isn’t gun liability just wanting to have it both ways?
Host : What’s the difference between selling one gun and selling a thousand?
Host: Your brother says you were a great athlete. Bait & Switch.
You’ll be 75 if elected, shouldn’t you release your medical records (yes) before Iowa?
Would your parents be proud?
Questions to Clinton
Host: You got the Boston Globe endorsement, Des Moines register endorsement, president Obama gave interview - said you are wicked smart, know every policy - sounds like an endorsement.
Host: He (Obama) says you get undue criticism. (comment)
Praise coming your way, but you are in a nail biter with a self-described socialist named Bernie (comment)
Man 1: There's not the same enthusiasm for you than for Bernie. I hear you're dishonest from peers. Why no enthusiasm for you?.
Woman 1: Biden said you are a newcomer to income inequality. will it be an issue you will pursue.
Man 2: I watched the Bengazi hearings - I am gung-ho supporter of yours now.
99% of questions tonight are on domestic policy. . Where do you land 1 - 10 as an interventionist.
Critics see Obama’s time as a period of less stability vs terror. How do you respond?
Arab woman: BLM and Islamophobia - will you protect rights and not marginalize? Will you keep the USA a great place to raise a family?
Woman 3: When you are elected President, what will you say to Republican voters?
Difficult to form coalitions with adversaries. Why would Republicans work with you?
What is it about you that can separate the anger of the Bengazi hearings and then work with them?
Man 3: Is Bengazi an issue in GE or as President?
H: Des Moines register - email problem. You apologized only when you need to. Willing to say it was an error in judgement?
Sanders America Ad reaction?
Man 4: Which previous President inspired you the most? ( Man said “I can see why they gave you this question” - who gave her the question if not you?)
Those were the questions. Were they fair?
My opinion?
Bernie got 15 Hardballs and 3 Softballs.
Hillary got 9 Softballs and 7 Hardballs.
Bernie was constantly questioned, "How will you do it? How? How?"
Hillary was given outright praise in the opening, "Look at all your endorsements! Even Obama said nice things, that's basically an endorsement."
CNN blatantly ignored all of Bernie's endorsements.
Then, and it was the most grating thing to me, they gave Hillary a softball that actually became an easy attack on Bernie. "Praise coming your way, but you are in a nail biter with a self-described socialist named Bernie"
Also, it's the softest of softballs when you get a question like: "BLM and Islamophobia - will you protect rights and not marginalize? Will you keep the USA a great place to raise a family?" The answer to this question is literally, "Yes I will." It is the easiest question on the board...
Unless you ignore the question that literally has nothing to do with Hillary: "Critics see Obama’s time as a period of less stability vs terror. How do you respond?" That is literally, "Hey, instead of talking about your campaign, let's talk about Obama some more."
To me, the bias is clear. But what do you see?
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)But the event itself was a sneaky little slider. Loving this.
retrowire
(10,345 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Nothing to get worked up over. Great night last night for the democratic party. We were the winners.
retrowire
(10,345 posts)Thank you for your time.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)retrowire
(10,345 posts)would be answering the question given to you. Was it biased or not? lol you missed and hit your thumb.
You're free to try answering again, but I'm sure you won't.
stonecutter357
(13,045 posts)
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)with the obvious unfairness of the questions chosen and the moderator's comments and conduct. Why did he allow O'Malley to stand when answering questions but insist that Bernie sit?
And Hillary's performance was so weak. She went on and on about all the unelected, self-appointed jobs she did. I laughed when she said she went to Alabama "all by myself."
She is unqualified and ridiculous and being foisted on us by the DNC and its buddies.
If Bernie is not the candidate, I am going to seriously rethink my affiliation with the Democratic Party.
I see the Party going in the direction it went in 1968. That ended very, very badly.
The DNC should have relaxed and let the people decide, but no, from Obama on down, it is totally set on Hillary.
She is not qualified. Her judgment, as we have seen, is terrible. She has no clue as to the problems of real Americans. She wouldn't want to have a clue because if she did, she would probably lose a lot of money because she would have to offend her billionaire friends.
Hillary is not a winner. If she wins it will only be because enough Americans are so disgusted with what Republicans offer that they hold their noses and go to the polls and vote for her.
Sorry. But I am not a stupid person. I have been around the world and lived and seen and read and done and learned a lot.
If Hillary is elected, she will have a Republican Congress with few friends and little support. Her time in the Senate was not a particularly lengthy or successful one. She clearly has little respect and few friends among Republicans in Congress. I question whether she can even complete a term in the White House what with the threat of impeachment that Republicans will hang over her head from day one.
Bernie was the winner of the forum last night in spite of the rigging of it by the Democratic Party.
If anyone wants proof that the game in America and in the Democratic Party is rigged in favor of certain very wealthy interests, last night's forum is it.
Response to JDPriestly (Reply #84)
NCTraveler This message was self-deleted by its author.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Our candidates are out there talking about income inequality, taxes, social justice, fighting for amazing groups like PP and unions, taking republicans to task for their knuckle dragging ideas, additional regulations, etc....
The list just goes on and on. I admit I'm not as happy with Sanders. I still think he is an important voice and don't outright discount him.
nyabingi
(1,145 posts)
one_voice
(20,043 posts)But no one seems to care about that. Until **he** decides he's no longer in this race we have 3 candidates.
As for the questions it's tit for tat.
elleng
(141,926 posts)and likely similar to HRC. THANKS for pointing this out, one_voice.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)and based on the question"when are you dropping out" its clear they were not interested in making this fair three ways
kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)Bernie handled the hardballs excellently!
Hillary tried to run the clock on every question she was given and most of them were really easy.
ViseGrip
(3,133 posts)explain herself, or dare say taxes will need to be raised for what she wants. Our taxes, not wall streets as Bernie wants to do.
Getting rid of health premiums monthly, putting a tax in place, is paramount! But they just did this to get all the media to come out that Bernie will raise taxes.
Again, utter bullshit.
retrowire
(10,345 posts)I'm certain they'll play it like a Dean Scream moment. So in this year of 2016 where the spread of information is much differently controlled, we the people need to CONSISTENTLY counter the tripe.
TCJ70
(4,387 posts)...then he has the opportunity to say, "What would you rather I do? Lie about it?" He would also have the opportunity to explain how our tax dollars are inappropriately spent and he wants to reorient that problem. It's not a total negative.
Matariki
(18,775 posts)Between the tax question and the vapid 'so you're for bringing back big government - yes or no?' question.
It was pretty clear he was trying to get soundbites.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Prominent Florida Democrats agree Hillary Clinton is stronger candidate than Bernie Sanders
http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/stateroundup/prominent-florida-democrats-agree-hillary-clinton-is-stronger-candidate/2262744
retrowire
(10,345 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)Prominent Florida Democrats Don't Understand that the People are Tired of the Establishment and We Don't Give a Rat's Ass What they Think
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)I can only imagine you are being poached by the likes of the NYT and such.
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)I actually did used to write headlines because I have been a REAL HONEST TO GOD reporter and editor. That one would have been too long for actual publication, but I wasn't writing for that space. I was writing on a message board.
On edit: Heck. I just wrote a headline today, since I now work as a content manager.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Duval
(4,280 posts)Android3.14
(5,402 posts)The words of "prominent" Florida Democrats are more about Clinton's control issues and penchant for vindictive political retaliation than anything else.
A question for you, because it is obvious you have at least a bright normal intelligence,do you support Hillary because
1) You benefit from the status quo
2) Have not been harmed (yet) by the status quo
3) Want a female Prez despite any negative fallout
4) Really do not understand the problems we face
5) Some combination of the above
TCJ70
(4,387 posts)...is how many more times the word "Host" appears in Bernie's list versus Hillary's. A small thing I also noticed, no one was asked after Hillary's questions if they were satisfied with the answer. Both Bernie and MoM's questioners were asked about that a few times.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)retrowire
(10,345 posts)I've got the objective facts laid out before you and you'd rather insult.
How about your opinion, as I have asked? biased or not?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)No, that would be way too honest.
retrowire
(10,345 posts)Still biased in my opinion, what do you think?
http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2016/01/26/cnn-iowa-democratic-presidential-town-hall-rush-transcript/
DanTex
(20,709 posts)retrowire
(10,345 posts)
bigtree
(94,261 posts)...that's messed up.
retrowire
(10,345 posts)And secondly, Go see the article about the Town Hall on CNN's website. MoM only got a sentence while Bernie and Hillary got the rest of the article.
I understand the blatant bias against O'Malley, but unfortunately that's doomed already.
bigtree
(94,261 posts)...and the myopia.
'Inevitable' isn't just a Hillary thing.
retrowire
(10,345 posts)
Deny and Shred
(1,061 posts)but I understand why you'd think its 'messed up.'
I was typing notes on all the questions for Bernie at the start. After his segment was over, it was bedtime and two snowdays in a row meant bedtime took longer than I'd hoped. It happens sometimes.
I got back to the TV and Sec. Clinton was walking out. I took notes on those questions, too. I wanted just the questions.
Once it was all over, I wanted to see the DU reaction. I saw a thread, decided I'd post what I had.
I could have gone back through the DVR and captured the O'Malley questions, but I posted first, read a bit, and went to bed. I haven't gone back and watched his portion. Perhaps I will, but I'm quite busy today. You can feel free to add his portion, too, if you want to put in the time and effort.
Retrowire asked to post what I wrote, I agreed and the rest as they say is history.
It wasn't a pre-determined, malicious turn-my-back-as-O'Malley-waits-to-shake-my-hand thing.
What did you think? There were a few follow-ups (and lack thereof) that I found interesting.
oasis
(53,692 posts)Nothing new. 
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)She can't even answer easy questions because she has no platform. Her ideas will not solve the big problems our country faces. Her answer on income disparity or inequality was totally evasive. She is just a voice for the wealthiest in the country. She really doesn't have a clue as to how to deal with the problems of ordinary people.
oasis
(53,692 posts)pointing out how wrong you are on every one of your assertions. Maybe you'll look at her through a corrected lens after she's President and gets some legislation passed that's to your liking. 
uponit7771
(93,532 posts)retrowire
(10,345 posts)
corkhead
(6,119 posts)This will backfire big time on the perpetrators
FlatBaroque
(3,160 posts)I am starting to believe that the best way for Bernie to govern with a mandate is to continue this campaign while exposing the corruption and bias of the MSM. CNN is horrid, possibly the worst of the bunch, but MSNBC can be equally awful. So when Bernie wins, part of his mandate to lead will be built on the foundation of having won while the entire establishment fought against him.
retrowire
(10,345 posts)that Bernie is capable of using political jiu jitsu. The fact that CNN got the "We will raise taxes, yes we will" sound bite is the best news that THEY got that night. But, I don't think it's enough against the flood of the hivemind that is the internet.
Already, I'm seeing that CNN has released the tweet of the clip of him saying "we'll raise taxes" and they cut it so that's ALL the clip says, no explanation of the benefits at all. But I'm already seeing when they post that clip, all the Bernie supporters jump on with the details. We won't let that misinformation stick.
fbc
(1,668 posts)lastone
(588 posts)was a farce that bernie turned into a win for his (our) campaign, save for the obvious bias for HRC they failed to do anything of substance and it was obvious it was an infomercial - and after watching the debate I donated again as I'm sure many other people did. HRC can't politic her way to this nomination even w/the help of CNN.
Duval
(4,280 posts)
thesquanderer
(13,006 posts)re:
Unless you ignore the question that literally has nothing to do with Hillary: "Critics see Obama’s time as a period of less stability vs terror. How do you respond?" That is literally, "Hey, instead of talking about your campaign, let's talk about Obama some more."
Obama's time, in terms of foreign policy (stability, terrorism), included HRC's tenure as Secretary of State managing and having substantal input into these policies.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)First it was just ignoring him now it is actively out there.
I did not watch it but it was no surprise to me that the questions wee loaded in favor of Clinton..
EndElectoral
(4,213 posts)I think the questions to Clinton were really softball. But I don't want to pick favorites here on this event since I missed the Town Hall.
However, if these were the overall questions then they were an insult to the American public who needs real penetrating questions. These are pretty dreadful.
wouldsman
(94 posts)
beltanefauve
(1,784 posts)is the elephant in the room. No mention of TPP in any of the debates or town halls.
Deny and Shred
(1,061 posts)My typing sucks, and I was listening to the answers. I paraphrased some of my comtemporaneous notes, so not verbatim, but the gist is intact.
Those were the questions, yes. I didn't skip any. A few times, the host would follow up, and there would be a comment. I included those.
Knowing the event was added - despite calls in the Fall by O'Malley and Sanders when their name recognition was low and Hillary was way ahead - added on a Monday a week before Iowa when the race is now neck and neck, I thought there just might be some bias in the questions posed and I wanted to keep track best I could.
I thought they were penetrating questions for Sen. Sanders, and he responded well. He is very good on his feet - genuine. Worth watching. He appeared to turn a couple of the audience questioners around.
I thought they could have asked more penetrating questions to Sec. Clinton. There were a couple instances that I did think were canned. The last questioner actually said half under his breath after he asked it, "I can see why they gave you this question." It was very awkward.
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)When it's put in cold, hard black and white, you can clearly see the biased against Sanders and the fawning over Clinton. No question.
retrowire
(10,345 posts)wouldsman
(94 posts)I wasn't going to respond to this thread initially because I only watched a few minutes of the forum. But then I realized that I didn't watch anymore because this event was biased from its very inception. I had wanted to watch the entire thing, but I do not have a CNN subscription so I could only watch a few minutes of the beginning and then CNN cut out and said if I wanted to watch more I needed to subscribe.
Other debates and forums have been well planned in advance. I hosted one debate watch party and made sure I was somewhere with proper TV access for others. However, because this one with came with such short notice I was not able to.
So no matter who is seen as having performed better, this event IMHO was biased from the get go. The bias that I see may not necessarily be pro Hillary or anti Bernie, but it is clearly anti democratic to have events like this not be readily (and easily)available to the general public.
modestybl
(458 posts)... and Sanders took better advantage despite the transparent attempt of Chris Cuomo to tilt the scale toward HRC. Nice try guys.
retrowire
(10,345 posts)consistently knock down the "raise taxes" soundbite they got out of him. They're going to push that, we need to push harder.
LannyDeVaney
(1,033 posts)is that a direct enough answer for you?
As others have said, and really what I feel can be said about every Democratic event thus far, the entire party came out looking good. Much more substantive discussions than the other side.
Not really getting all the complaining from Democrats.
retrowire
(10,345 posts)Why would I complain about that?
We may disagree, but since you answered instead of dodging, triangulating and avoiding the question, I can actually respect your answer.
Now, the majority so far see it as biased, yet you don't see any bias at all. Why is that?
Victor_c3
(3,557 posts)These are the big things that will keep people from voting for him. If he can come up with real solutions and answers to these questions now then he'll nail it in the general election.
navarth
(5,927 posts)Tin Foil Hat On: why did this come about? I thought DWS wasn't allowing any more debates. Was this a setup because Sec. Clinton wasn't doing as well as hoped and needed a boost?
Cuomo did not impress me. And some of the Hillary questioners were clear plants. IMO.
retrowire
(10,345 posts)Cuomo really dogged Bernie and laid off Hillary. It's as clear as night and day. He let Hillary have the stage alone with the audience at times. He tried forcing Bernie to answer yes or no to the vague question, "Big government or not?!" instead of accepting Bernie's EXPLANATIONS.
I'd think the people would want to hear an explanation more than a simple yes or no to a vague ass question.
Helen Borg
(3,963 posts)Imagine with a plain field, starting from fair media exposure and all.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)retrowire
(10,345 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)retrowire
(10,345 posts)"You paying for these programs is punishment. You are amassing the biggest government ever?"
She wasn't challenged on how she'd do a thing. And I believe that's because she wouldn't really change anything, therefore, wouldn't be too hard to enact her proposals.
Kip Humphrey
(4,753 posts)azureblue
(2,728 posts)CNN did nothing more than throw out attack and gotcha questions. Nothing in depth.The hosts acted like a smug college freshmen trying to reduce two very qualified, highly experienced and intelligent candidates to a teenage mudslinging schoolyard fight.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)The expectation is that Clinton will and does complain that they're picking on grandma.
book_worm
(15,951 posts)elleng
(141,926 posts)and likely a comparable amount less than Secretary Clinton, as ever being cheated by the msm of having his voice heard by the electorate.
retrowire
(10,345 posts)Honestly, I wish that it would have been a neck and neck contest between Sanders and O'Malley with Clinton in the back.
elleng
(141,926 posts)but tptb can't have that, can they??? 
Duval
(4,280 posts)And it has been biased from the very beginning. I'm talking about DWSchultz and her shenanigans.
Uncle Joe
(65,132 posts)Thanks for the thread, retrowire. 
retrowire
(10,345 posts)Uncle Joe
(65,132 posts)poet in me. 
HenryWallace
(332 posts)...... These guys don't git it!
Bernie's a "Hardball Hitter!"
Keep bringing it on......
forest444
(5,902 posts)but oh so predictable.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1040140
Duval
(4,280 posts)retrowire
(10,345 posts)
lark
(26,080 posts)Did DWS script the questions?
stopbush
(24,808 posts)He is talking about ideas that are radical in this day and age, just as radical as was the idea of revolution back when we were still the colonies.
Yet, you act like the moderators of these public town halls etc are being unfair in giving him the opportunity to tell the public exactly what he means by his rhetoric. Bernie has put them in a position where they can't just act like he hasn't said what he's said. He is counting on them asking these kinds of questions so he can educate the electorate on who he is and what he stands for. His job as a candidate is to take their question and move the discussion onto his turf.
Crocodile tears over a non-issue, IMO.
retrowire
(10,345 posts)This isn't about how hard they were on Bernie.
It's about how they were noticeably hard on one candidate and soft on another.
Hardball questions are GREAT, they're important. But when you come off as seemingly protecting one candidate while reaming the other, then it's worth discussion.
Bernie's questions were fine. I don't have an issue with that. I have an issue with "questions" that basically praise Hillary on her "sounds like an endorsement" from Obama. I have an issue with a moderator that lists a bunch of Hillary's endorsements but neglects to mention any of Bernie's. I have an issue with questions like, "BLM and Islamophobia, will you do anything to help us?" Because the answer is "Yes I will." Hillary was allowed to answer that with no opposition. If Bernie had answered it, the moderator would've asked "How?" just like he did with Bernie's other questions. But since it's Hillary, let's give her easy answers and not contest them.
So I'm perfectly fine with the questions against Bernie. It's the fact that Hillary didn't get the same shakedown that should piss people off.
stopbush
(24,808 posts)Bernie was asked why so many people thought he was dishonest.
To imagine that Hilary wasn't asked hardball questions is naive.
retrowire
(10,345 posts)Bernie got 15 Hardballs and 3 Softballs.
Hillary got 9 Softballs and 7 Hardballs.
Because I never said she didn't get asked hardball questions.
Also, it wasn't a debate.
stopbush
(24,808 posts)Childish shit, that.
retrowire
(10,345 posts)I just find it funny when people step up but don't really have a good foundation to stand on. especially when they want to be sarcastic themselves accusing others of crocodile tears and what not.
but go ahead and try for high ground because I lol'd at your failing sarcasm. you'd laugh if someone was sarcastic to you and didn't really understand what you were saying to begin with either.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)at least with one candidate
twitter was brutal on him as it should have been
mom was screwed time wise, again
ads were run during bs and mom appearance but not hrc
questions to mom and bs were serious, to hrc mostly fluff
mom was asked a horridly shitty question...basically when is he dropping out
I am sure there is more but that is what comes to mind
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)affiliations. That was so blatantly anti-Bernie, even making him sit down when he wanted to stand up.
The Democratic Party is an I don't know for me.
I remember, in the late 1940s, asking my grandmother what political party she belonged to. I was very young, and the entire family kind of opened their mouths and acted shocked. But anyway, she answered me and said, "We used to be Republicans, but the Republican Party left us behind."
There is no place for a progressive Democrat to go. In Los Angeles, I like all the Democratic candidates although I do not think our mayor was wise to endorse or speak up for Hillary. He lost a lot of my respect with that one.
But we have a $15 minimum wage on the way and a ban on fracking and are a very liberal city so I support the Democrats on our ticket.
That show last night was despicable. Just despicable. I think it offended many, many Americans.
And in spite of the soft-ball questions, Hillary's performance was deplorable. Affected, arrogant and phony. She is a very, debilitatingly self-centered egotist. Hopeless.
A vote for Hillary is only about Hillary.
A vote for Bernie is a vote for Americans.
That's the difference as I see it. And last night's show confirmed my opinion as far as I am concerned.
Feel the Bern!
srobert
(81 posts)If Sanders doesn't win the nomination, I will immediately change to the Green party and begin working to get Jill Stein on the ballot in Nevada.
stopbush
(24,808 posts)Those are the other choices.
And BTW, your post pretty much reads as a violation of the DU Terms of service.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)I haven't yet left. If Bernie is nominated, I won't need to.
I assure you that if Clinton is nominated, I will also leave DU.
I think that Clinton's nomination could divide the party because of the unfair conduct of the DNC. I don't think they realize that many Bernie supporters are offended by the conduct of the DNC.
stopbush
(24,808 posts)over this as all of Bernie's supporters on DU seem to be.
Had Bernie not run and the choice was Hillary or O'Malley, I doubt there would be such an anti-Hillary fever running loose on DU.
There's a real feeling of desperation among Bernie's supporters on DU that indicates that for all the bluster, they know deep down that Bernie getting the nod would still be a major upset. You all seem to be preparing for the inevitable Hillary win by stomping your feet and threatening to take your toys home if your man doesn't win.
It's petulant.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)I think that Hillary is a shamefully weak candidate. Her vote for the Iraq War Resolution confirms for me that her judgment is poor and that she is not visionary or far-sighted enough to be president.
Hillary's cackle laugh in the video in which she described the killing of Gaddhafi is another example of the overconfident, reckless nature and lack of wisdom that is basic in her personality. Gaddhaffi was, no question, a horrible dictator. But Hillary failed to understand that the problem in the Middle East is not just the large number of horrible dictators like him but the basic lack of a tradition of stable democracy upon which good government can be built.
But then, does Hillary, after so many years mixing with "leaders" in America and the world and so little living with the rest of us, really understand what democracy is about at all?
Her answer at the Forum when asked about income disparity and inequality was disconcerting to say the least. She simply does not seem to understand the nature or effects of the income inequality, the wealth disparity that our country is suffering from at this time. She does not understand that it is affecting everything in our lives right down to the food we put on the table, the quality of the shoes we put on our feet, how warm our homes are in the winter, how often we see our families spread across the nation or the world, the schools our children go to, the condition of the sidewalks we walk on, everything in our lives -- to say nothing of the houses we live in and the sizes of our savings accounts.
Our tax policy relies on collecting money from the incomes of a lot of middle class people and then spending that money on the defense industry and a few other special interests in the country. We are moving toward a tax system that reminds me a bit of the tax squeeze on the middle class and poor in France prior to the French Revolution. Bernie is suggesting raising taxes a little on the middle class in order to provide specific benefits to its members. But he is suggesting raising taxes far more on those who have so much influence in Congress and the White House that they have wrangled relatively low, permissive tax rates for themselves. Bernie promises to look at an expose these kinds of subtle injustices that only tax lawyers really understand.
Wall Street's policies (and by Wall Street I mean the financial sector) caused the 2008 recession. But those Wall Street policies were possible to a shameful extent because of legislation that was signed by Bill Clinton. Most of our presidents don't seem to have much math sense, much understanding of what the economic decisions they make when they sign certain bills or appoint certain individuals will mean to ordinary Americans. I think that Bernie has the common sense that will make him better at economic decisions and appointments too. I don't think he is going to appoint any Goldman Sachs or other big bank employees to high places in his cabinet.
And at the center of all of this is a trade policy that has reduced opportunities and lowered income expectations for Americans while enriching a few at the very top. We should not sacrifice our sovereignty to a group of three attorneys sitting on a kangaroo arbitration court somewhere in Geneva, Switzerland. That is a step backward. If other countries are dishonest, they will find a way to violate trade agreements and buy off the court that sits in judgment regarding their violation. These trade agreements cannot work in the world of today.
Hillary offers growth, but if growth means growth in international trade, will trickle down to Americans on Main Street only in the form of a cheaper tee shirt and not in a rise in real living standard or a reason or means to participate more in community life. It won't translate into a lower rate of drug use or incarceration or reduce the numbers of guns people think they need.
Economic growth, if it further enriches those whose political donations too often determine who sits in Congress and on the benches of our courts and, yes, in the White House, but does not empower American voters to choose those political representatives and indirectly those appointees, then it is not helpful. We need economic growth that empowers the poor and the middle class in our country. We need to return to the tax system we had following WWII.
Hillary will not help our country. Her speeches are not in many cases really relevant, and she does not propose solutions to the most serious problems in our country.
If Bernie is not elected, I do not know what will happen to our country. It's not that he is perfect, but rather that the other choices are grim. And Hillary is no exception.
On top of it all, the Republicans have focused on making her unelectable since early in the Bill Clinton administration. It's going to be very hard to get the many Americans who have been poisoned against voting for her to change their minds. Not only is she a bad candidate, but I think she is an unrealistic one.
On the other hand, Bernie is speaking to the frustrations and anger of Americans,l Americans who lost or nearly lost their jobs for no good reason, Americans who lost their homes, Americans who have not forgotten the insecurity and suffering they went through thanks to the Bush and Clinton administrations' sell-out to Wall Street greed.
It's time to get Americans working together again, and Bernie is the only candidate who really understands that. Hillary only talks about what she has and will do. She doesn't get that Americans want to hear talk about what they have done and will do. She just doesn't get it.
The anti-Hillary fervor is not the fault of those of us who do not want Hillary to be president. It is the fault of the current political and economic establishment that is insensitive to the cries of the people -- of all races. The disinterest in the White House and the leadership of the Democratic Party at what went on in Wisconsin a few years ago and the lack of an effective response to Occupy Wall Street's concerns are coming home to roost, and that is a good development for the Democratic Party and our country.
It's up to the DNC to decide whether 2016 will be another 1968 and the division of the Democratic Party or not. Judging from the choice of moderator and the conduct of the Forum the other night, I would say that the DNC is choosing to ignore the base of the party. We are the folks that get out and register voters and make phone calls and work for the party. We stand at farmers' markets and talk to voters. We are the core of the party. We post on the internet. We write letters. We attend meetings. Without us there is no party. We deserve to be heard. We deserve a say.
stopbush
(24,808 posts)of the party.
That I disagree with you doesn't change that.
I have no problem with Bernie and will vote for him if he gets the nod. My problem is with his DU supporters, who fall into the category of "with friends like these..."
Frankly, there's a naivety and desperation to DU's Bernieites that is more than a few rungs below what Bernie deserves as a viable candidate.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)We either continue the Citizens United route which awards to the very wealthy, the oligarchy, the means and methods to control the political message so as to take over the government and squeeze out the voices of everyone else, or we vote for Bernie, a vote to end Citizens United's impact and all of the government for the rich, by the rich and of the rich that results from it.
This 2016 election, like the 1968 election, will determine whether we develop further as a meaningful democracy (or representative republic if you are right-wing enough to prefer that language), or whether we become so dominated by the owners of the media, the employers, those who live from profit and not from work, that we cannot realize the dreams of the Founding Fathers.
There is no turning around from this election.
It has been years since Citizens United was decided. Several states have voted to amend the Constitution to restrain the influence of big money on politics. But Congress has done nothing, and the oligarchs have doubled down on placing ads and buying influence in part through political donations.
Bernie is not just speaking out against Citizens United. He is refusing donations over a certain amount and scorning the superpacs of the rich. (He does accept support from unions which are not made up of people with a lot of money.)
It is essential that Bernie win because it is the only way to show those who try to buy our elections that we refuse to elect money but prefer to elect people who will represent all Americans including those of us with little or modest amounts of money.
And that is why Bernie is getting so many donations from people who have little money to spend on campaigns. It is because we are tired of Citizens United and the dominance in our elections and in campaigns of the influence of very wealthy people.
We saw in 2008 how that influence of the wealthy on our Congress and our politicians and political process worked out. As the Occupy movement pointed out, the banks which were irresponsible in their lending practices were bailed out. The homeowners who lost their jobs or who found themselves in a market and in mortgages that they did not really understand got locked out. Many small businesses failed. Congress and the president did little to help people who found themselves bankrupt because they missed a mortgage payment or because their house was under water.
I am not saying that the Bernie supporters are the people who suffered the most from the 2008 recession. I am saying that those of us who so strongly support Bernie are very aware and understand the extreme disregard of Congress and the financial sector for the people who suffered so much.
In addition to the buying of Congress and other political appointments and the abuse of the power that is bought to make the rParich richer and the poor poorer and in the process decimate the wealth and even hope of the middle class, we are undergoing, as a society, enormous changes in our job market and our education system.
Part-time work and temporary jobs are the norm now. Yet our government still treats employment as though it was more permanent and full-time. A high school degree does not prepare people for jobs that enable a person to buy a house or pay off the car loan or ------- SAVE.
And that brings me to another topic (I'm not always this manic in my posts), saving. When I lived in Europe years ago, the governments of Germany and Austria in particular sponsored programs that provided incentives to people to save. We have no incentives to save in America right now. Not only are interest rates low (probably for good reason) but banks charge adults who have small savings accounts just for the privilege of keeping money in the bank. That is to me a sign that something is very wrong. I'm not an economist so I don't understand why this is allowed. But it seems to me that Americans need to be encouraged to save if we are to have a functioning society. It isn't for me a question of economics, but of the ability of individuals in this time of part-time and temp work to be able to survive between jobs.
So, basically I am so opposed to Hillary and more of the same because I see enormous problems that Hillary does not speak to. Bernie does speak to them. For example, he proposes banking for small savers and for paycheck cashing in post offices. I think that is a great idea. The big banks really don't want the business of people who earn just enough to get by and can barely save. Why not let the post offices have that business, provide that service?
Hillary is just not responding to these problems. Bernie is.
On the issues, Hillary is weak. People who work and live in the D.C. bubble may view her as realistic. But those of us out here, and I am in California, view her as oblivious.
On the police abuse, Hillary is oblivious. On economic issues, Hillary is oblivious. One of her problems is that she wants to take credit for the experience of living in the White House during Bill Clinton's presidency, but she does not take responsibility for the minimum sentencing law, the welfare reform, the repeal of Glass-Steagall, the Commodities future trading law and all the other mistakes and excesses of the Clinton administration. As Bernie says, "Enough is enough."
President Obama is a great man. He is clearly a man of vision especially in foreign policy. He is patient and a good human being. But, he appointed Rahm Emmanuel as his chief of staff. Rahm Emmanuel insulted the progressives in the party. And now we see how he handled damaging information about the conduct of his police force as mayor of Chicago. Whey was he named chief of staff for President Obama's administration. President Obama allowed the NSA to collect personal information on each of us, no doubt on me because I write about politics a lot online, without getting a warrant. That practice is, in my view, unconstitutional. President Obama is a lawyer and allowed that to go on for years during his presidency. I certainly hope that a President Bernie Sanders will investigate and find ways to allow needed information to be gathered in ways that comply with the Constitution.
The list of reasons that we reject Hillary so strongly is very, very long.
I am reminded of my experience campaigning for Bernie at a public event in Los Angeles. The enthusiasm for him was something I had never encountered in all my years campaigning for candidates. So I asked a young woman, about the age of a college student why she was so enthusiastic about Bernie, and she said, "The issues." And that it is pretty much it. Bernie is talking about the issues that matter to ordinary people. Hillary just is not. And Hillary's plans are very vague. She says she wants to grow the economy. Great -- but what does that mean? She wants a $10 minimum wage. Bernie wants $15.
And by the way, I support the $15 wage. You can bet your life that people earning $15 per hour will get taxes including payroll taxes taken out of their paychecks. That money comes from their employers often big corporations like Walmart and McDonalds. Those corporations are not real keen on paying their taxes. But if you require those corporations to pay their employees decent wages, then collect a portion of those wages as taxes, it is an indirect way to get the corporations to pay at least some small share of the taxes that they should be responsible for anyway.
So I definitely favor the $15 per hour wage over $10 per hour. Paying $15 per hour may be slightly inflationary, but it will increase our tax base and insure that the taxes are paid. It will help increase the amounts of money in the Social Security trust fund if you think about it.
That's another thing. We need to lift the cap on the payroll taxes. It may mean that we could even collect enough money to lower the rate of the payroll taxes slightly. And we need modest taxes on capital gains and on very large estates and inheritances. I know that there will be ways to avoid these taxes, but we should at least try.
I could go on and on. Good questions.
onecaliberal
(36,594 posts)
PatrynXX
(5,668 posts)they both stage their debates. Supporters might as well be voting for Trump
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)"Is the era of big government back with a President Sanders?"
(Is what we have now "little government"? Exactly when was that bygone "era of big government" and what made it "big"?)
"What’s the difference between selling one gun and selling a thousand? "
(999?)
"Would your parents be proud?"
(what? Who cares?)
How about those tough Hillary questions!:
"When you are elected President, what will you say to Republican voters? "
("Cut it out?"
retrowire
(10,345 posts)Big Government is supposed to sound scary or some shit.
And the question about the guns... I would have been like... Huh? wtf does that have to do with anything?
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)... Sorry 'bout that....
DrDan
(20,411 posts)retrowire
(10,345 posts)
mountain grammy
(29,035 posts)what else is new.They're deliberately ignoring the grass roots movement for Bernie. Fine! Bring it on. Our candidate's been around a while and done his job honorably. He's capable of answering your questions.
Hillary's not new to this game either. Grass roots won in 2008 and we will again.
karynnj
(60,965 posts)You could add, he was asked who his supporters should go to when he does not have 15%.
The question was rather rude -- but the bias was amplified that it was not "for a cabinet position" -- but the questions assumes specifically HRC as the President.
retrowire
(10,345 posts)
lovemydog
(11,833 posts)handle questions that were significant and some that were offbeat. That's what I'm looking for - how each candidate handles policy and also how they think on their feet.
There's a tendency among fans (root word: fanatic) to constantly blame the referees.
ypsfonos
(144 posts)That would explain the fawning.
Oh it wasn't?
Guess it's clear then.
121xGigawatts
(12 posts)I would have like to have seen one question to Clinton about her relationships with the banks and big pharma, but that would be bad for her. It also would have been nice to see her get a question about her speech transcripts, that would have been great to see her laugh on stage for a couple minutes to avoid answering! Also, once I see the phrase "self described socialist", there is immediate bias in my opinion.
Mike Nelson
(10,943 posts)My first thought was that the time/placement favored Bernie. It's great to go first and it seemed, to me, like he had the most time. Going last can be a challenge, but it can be met. Trouble is... people might turn it off during Martin. Martin seemed slighted. I think CNN figured the best ratings would be to have Hillary last and Bernie as the lead.
While your point about the questions are valid, I thought it was fairly even, at the time. I do think that Cuomo tried to "challenge" Bernie more but tried to use questioners to "challenge" Hillary more. One bit of bias toward Hillary I thought was how it was relayed to the audience that she and the moderator were friendly. Hillary picked up on this and mentioned Cuomo's father. She's a good debater - using that to her advantage. If the audience likes the moderator, it scores.
I don't think the Martin segment did him very much good, sadly. They seemed to be really trying to draw out Bernie and Hillary, but the third candidate just didn't stand out - too bad because he was better here than in the last debate. He may have a good future, though!
Both Bernie and Hillary came across as loud and combative during their early questions. Later on, they seemed to tone it down. Much of this was the TV / stage setting. I thought they both did very well. I especially enjoyed Bernie complementing Hillary and she saying she enjoyed his America campaign ad. They were both classy. It is okay to bring up her war vote and his gun vote... I like their manners.
I though their closings were highlights. Another highlight for Hillary was her strong answer to a young voter who prefaced by practically calling her "dishonest" to her face. She did very well. And, for Bernie, I liked how he explained how taxes actually work; he seems so honest and refreshing.
My primary vote won't count for much - but I's say we have a winner!
emulatorloo
(46,155 posts)Whatever question he was asked, he knocked it out of the ballpark.
Skwmom
(12,685 posts)questionseverything
(11,836 posts)i actually felt a little sorry for hc when they were playing bernie's beautiful commercial.....she looked like she might cry
you know she had to be thinking....why don't they feel that way about me
