CNN Democrat debate

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

CNN Democrat debate

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> CNN Democrat debate

Page: [1] 2 3 4 next > >>

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

CNN Democrat debate - 10/13/2015 8:41:01 PM

Greta75

Posts: 9968
Joined: 2/6/2011
Status: offline

It looks like after the debate, the main competition is still just Bernie and Hillary.

But Bernie blatantly said, his going to make the rich fund health care for the nation. That's how his going to get his funding.

I am not against national health care as I also believe every person has right to the dignity of being treated if they are genuinely ill. And if they cannot afford it, then something needs to be worked out. They still need to get treated and not left to die.

But I think there is something very interesting about taxes in the US. I feel like the tax rate is similar or even heavier than some other countries with national health care.

So I think the biggest problem is still wasteful spending and not negotiating the best prices, getting the best deals, for whatever programs they implemented. So I really like Bernie, he seem to be a really nice guy with humane ideas. But the solution is not taxing the rich more to fund this program, but the solution is to really go back and look at how government is spending their taxpayers money. Something is not right. The taxes are already very high. If Wikipedia is right and saying that the rich are taxed at 55.9%(fed+state+local) already, how much higher does Bernie want to go and thinks he needs to fund this! I personally think it's totally wrong for anybody who have accumulated wealth and then being forced to practically give 60% away.

I have not watched the entire debate yet, but from what little I have seen, I'd still like to see Trump take 4 years, to live up to his promises, I still believe his the only guy who will lower debt. It's just too bad he gotta continue his childish immature behaviour and very unpresidential social skills which takes away alot from how his background can really be useful to improve economy and fix the country's debt.

But I definitely do agree with them that they need to stop jailing people for marijuana. But I personally don't think Trump is really against marijuana either. And Trump isn't really against national health care either. And i don't think trump is against abortion. I think he flip flop on abortion and marijuana just to fit into republican camp. But his fiscally conservative that's why his in republican camp, otherwise, all his social stances are pretty democratic.

I think Hillary is funny in blaming republicans about her emails scandal though.

But one thing I'd say is all the democratic participants seem to be more united than the republicans in terms of their views and their support of each other.

Post #: 1

RE: CNN Democrat debate - 10/13/2015 10:30:18 PM

MrRodgers

Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline

Well when one looks at tax 'rates' you have a valid point. What has happened to federal revenues is in the post WWII era through about 1960, the corporation paid about $1.50 for every dollar paid in income taxes and at a point when income taxes were patently ridiculous. I think when Kennedy took office there were something like two dozen brackets with the highest at about 80%.

Now even though federal income taxes are now a little less than half that, the corporations are paying 10 cents for every dollar of labor. Corporate taxes themselves and combined with the federal intake from the top 5-10%, are all at a 60 year low. and one can readily see who are paying more of each dollar and not less. Total federal tax revenue from the corporation is now about equal to excise taxes and user fees to the federal govt....each about 10 cents for every dollar collected.

That shift and the increases in spending with as much for war and defense as social entitlements being the bulk, it is easy to see why deficits are so high. Add in the expansion of corporate welfare and the insane discounts to so-called long term, actually short term tax on capital and one doesn't need to be a mathematician to figure out where reform should start.

However per your comment on Bernie, a slightly higher tax on income well above say even several 100,000 say 500,000 or more plus equalizing the tax on capital to that of labor plus a combined payroll tax with medicare for all, could pay for universal health care given the federal govt.'s 'new' legal ability to negotiate prices down.

< Message edited by MrRodgers -- 10/13/2015 10:31:04 PM >

(in reply to Greta75)

Post #: 2

RE: CNN Democrat debate - 10/14/2015 2:16:07 AM

Kirata

Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline

~ FR ~

Drudge has a poll asking who won the debate. Current results:

SANDERS 61.25% (126,290 votes)
WEBB 21.93% (45,229 votes)
CLINTON 6.74% (13,891 votes)
O'MALLEY 6.33% (13,048 votes)
CHAFEE 3.75% (7,740 votes)

Total Votes: 206,198

K.

(in reply to MrRodgers)

Post #: 3

RE: CNN Democrat debate - 10/14/2015 2:22:46 AM

Lucylastic

Posts: 40310
Status: offline

Drudge?
A pol on dems.....
Snickets

_____________________________

(•_•)
<) )╯SUCH
/ \

\(•_•)
( (> A NASTY
/ \

(•_•)
<) )> WOMAN
/ \

Duchess Of Dissent
Dont Hate Love

(in reply to Kirata)

Post #: 4

RE: CNN Democrat debate - 10/14/2015 4:22:41 AM

MrMarkSilver

Posts: 9
Joined: 5/27/2014
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

~ FR ~

Drudge has a poll asking who won the debate. Current results:

SANDERS 61.25% (126,290 votes)
WEBB 21.93% (45,229 votes)
CLINTON 6.74% (13,891 votes)
O'MALLEY 6.33% (13,048 votes)
CHAFEE 3.75% (7,740 votes)

Total Votes: 206,198

K.

I'd say those results are much like the Ron Paul results in the past, organized voting to portray a false result.

(in reply to Kirata)

Post #: 5

RE: CNN Democrat debate - 10/14/2015 4:24:26 AM

Lucylastic

Posts: 40310
Status: offline

amongst drudge readers....
Thats like that poll...someone mentioned, when it was only readers of the paper...wasnt it an english one??? oh right yes it was..
*whistles* and searches.

_____________________________

(•_•)
<) )╯SUCH
/ \

\(•_•)
( (> A NASTY
/ \

(•_•)
<) )> WOMAN
/ \

Duchess Of Dissent
Dont Hate Love

(in reply to MrMarkSilver)

Post #: 6

RE: CNN Democrat debate - 10/14/2015 4:31:17 AM

Greta75

Posts: 9968
Joined: 2/6/2011
Status: offline

Clinton played the female card excessively much. And I thought she really didn't answer the question as to her emails and also why she vote for the Iraq war. She just keeps dodging.

Even females don't like hearing the female card being played.

And Sanders ideas are usually the kind of ideas that what I call populist. The idealistic world where all the rich share their wealth with all the poor and struggling, to make sure every human being can live with basic dignity. But if Sanders gets the Nomination, is US ready for Socialism?

I am personally not even against Socialism, but again..., it needs careful spending of taxpayers money and making the best deals, to keep taxes low to afford all that! It seems to me that Sanders solution for every problem is to punish the rich for being rich and let them use their money to close the wealth gap divide. It's a strange new world, where almost like it's shameful to be rich.

I think it needs a very altruistic society too.

< Message edited by Greta75 -- 10/14/2015 4:35:06 AM >

(in reply to MrMarkSilver)

Post #: 7

RE: CNN Democrat debate - 10/14/2015 4:33:38 AM

Lucylastic

Posts: 40310
Status: offline

if you dont think income inequality is an issue, you dont understand the problem.

_____________________________

(•_•)
<) )╯SUCH
/ \

\(•_•)
( (> A NASTY
/ \

(•_•)
<) )> WOMAN
/ \

Duchess Of Dissent
Dont Hate Love

(in reply to Greta75)

Post #: 8

RE: CNN Democrat debate - 10/14/2015 4:37:46 AM

Greta75

Posts: 9968
Joined: 2/6/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

if you dont think income inequality is an issue, you dont understand the problem.

I believe income inequality cannot be solved with welfare.

It needs to be solved with instilling a certain resilience never give up mindset and upgrading people with relevant job skills.

For people to become rich, it's more of a mindset, hand outs will do nothing to help the situation.

So there has to be more comprehensive solution like a department really researching where the jobs are, and how to help these people develop the skills to be place in these jobs, and how these jobs also include opportunities to grow and upgrade and continually move up to increase their skills and salary.

(in reply to Lucylastic)

Post #: 9

RE: CNN Democrat debate - 10/14/2015 4:54:58 AM

Lucylastic

Posts: 40310
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greta75

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

if you dont think income inequality is an issue, you dont understand the problem.

quote:

I believe income inequality cannot be solved with welfare.

Neither do I

quote:

It needs to be solved with instilling a certain resilience never give up mindset and upgrading people with relevant job skills.

How do you achieve that?

quote:

For people to become rich, it's more of a mindset, hand outs will do nothing to help the situation.

Mindset? LMAO
nothing to do with nepotism, corruption, greed cheating, lying, and treating employees like shit. That is more than a mindset
its a psychosis./

quote:

So there has to be more comprehensive solution like a department really researching where the jobs are, and how to help these people develop the skills to be place in these jobs, and how these jobs also include opportunities to grow and upgrade and continually move up to increase their skills and salary.

I dont disagree that there should be training and upgrading skills. But having worked with government, local communities and sponsors of programs for skills training many are run abysmally, there are not enough programs, enough funding, enough intention to see it through. And way to many people to fill every spot available.

_____________________________

(•_•)
<) )╯SUCH
/ \

\(•_•)
( (> A NASTY
/ \

(•_•)
<) )> WOMAN
/ \

Duchess Of Dissent
Dont Hate Love

(in reply to Greta75)

Post #: 10

RE: CNN Democrat debate - 10/14/2015 5:21:16 AM

bounty44

Posts: 6374
Joined: 11/1/2014
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greta75

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

if you dont think income inequality is an issue, you dont understand the problem.

I believe income inequality cannot be solved with welfare.

It needs to be solved with instilling a certain resilience never give up mindset and upgrading people with relevant job skills.

For people to become rich, it's more of a mindset, hand outs will do nothing to help the situation.

So there has to be more comprehensive solution like a department really researching where the jobs are, and how to help these people develop the skills to be place in these jobs, and how these jobs also include opportunities to grow and upgrade and continually move up to increase their skills and salary.

since apparently you "don't understand the problem," maybe lucy will deign to tell you exactly how income inequality is an issue?

for me, more than anything, its generic criticism of the left towards the successful (and only those on the right in actuality, because you never hear them complain about warren buffet, George soros, etc), with an ultimate goal of wealth redistribution in mind.

"income inequality" is a cry of the envious and rather than serve to create a motivation to achieve (the mindset you alluded to), it rather creates a mindset where the left is motivated to take from others, and feel it is their right to do so.

it also serves to get the liberals votes. its a part of their victimology methodology---which of course can be best "fixed" by larger more intrusive government, aka government force.

I suppose it helps if you believe that the successful only got to where they are, unscrupulously so, and on the backs of the little people they used, and are mercilessly crushing, along the way.

< Message edited by bounty44 -- 10/14/2015 6:07:29 AM >

(in reply to Greta75)

Post #: 11

RE: CNN Democrat debate - 10/14/2015 5:25:34 AM

Musicmystery

Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline

Well, here's the numbers from a FOX station:

Who won the CNN Democratic debate?

Bernie Sanders 77.48% (32,529 votes)

Hillary Clinton 15.77% (6,619 votes)

Jim Webb 3.47% (1,455 votes)

Martin O'Malley 2.69% (1,128 votes)

Lincoln Chafee 0.59% (254 votes)

http://fox5sandiego.com/2015/10/13/poll-who-won-the-cnn-democratic-debate/

(in reply to Lucylastic)

Post #: 12

RE: CNN Democrat debate - 10/14/2015 5:32:20 AM

Kirata

Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

Drudge?
A pol on dems.....
Snickets

Tim Groseclose, a Political Science and Economics professor at UCLA who invested years developing a quantitative measure of bias in the media, would not agree with your "snickets".

According to my analysis, the Drudge Report is approximately the most fair, balanced, and centrist news outlet in the United States. Yet, the overwhelming majority of media commentators claim that it has a conservative bias... Groseclose determines that Drudge, on a conservative to liberal scale of 0-100, with 50 being centrist, actually leans a bit left of center with a score of 60.4. The reason: Drudge mostly links to the sites of the mainstream media, with just a few written by Matt Drudge himself. "Since these links come from a broad mix of media outlets, and since the news in general is left-leaning, it should not be surprising that the slant quotient of the Drudge Report leans left," he writes ~U.S.News and World Report

K.

(in reply to Lucylastic)

Post #: 13

RE: CNN Democrat debate - 10/14/2015 5:43:48 AM

tweakabelle

Posts: 7522
Joined: 10/16/2007
From: Sydney Australia
Status: offline

It appears that Mr Groseclose might have an agenda of his own. According to wiki:

"In 2005, Groseclose co-authored an article with Jeffrey Milyo, a Professor of Economics at the University of Missouri, in the Quarterly Journal of Economics, entitled 'A Measure of Media Bias'.[4] The article suggested the American media had a liberal bias.[4] Drawing upon this article, Groseclose published Left Turn: How Liberal Media Bias Distorts the American Mind in 2012.[4] The book suggests that all media outlets in the United States are left-leaning.[5] He adds that conservative media outlets like Fox News and the Drudge Report are only moderately conservative.[5] Furthermore, he goes on to argue that the left-wing media bias influences American voters to lean left.[5] Were it not for the media, he hypothesizes that Republican candidate John McCain would have won the 2008 United States presidential election.[5]

In a review for The Washington Times, L. Brent Bozell III, the president of the Media Research Center, praised Groseclose's "fierce intellectual honesty," explaining, "He makes no bones about his own political biases."[6] Brozell also praised Groseclose's willingness to accept peer review, even from liberal critics.[6] However, he was critical of the preponderance of "quantitative mathematical formulations" at the expense of "qualitative analysis."[6] Similarly, he dismissed Groseclose's use of "statistical jargon" as "pure mumbo-jumbo that the layman just must accept."[6] Meanwhile, in the Huffington Post, Terry Krepel suggested Groseclose was "more interested in trying to forward a conservative agenda than objective research."[4] He also criticized the "lack of attention to detail in Groseclose's book that raises questions about his larger conclusions."[4]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Groseclose (emphasis added)

It seems that, like so many of his fellow right wingers, he has quite a bee in his bonnet about the "liberal media". His claim that McCain's loss to Obama was due to the media is laughable - and suggests he has a very low opinion of the intelligence of Americans.

< Message edited by tweakabelle -- 10/14/2015 6:06:12 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Kirata)

Post #: 14

RE: CNN Democrat debate - 10/14/2015 5:50:37 AM

Lucylastic

Posts: 40310
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Well, here's the numbers from a FOX station:

Who won the CNN Democratic debate?

Bernie Sanders 77.48% (32,529 votes)

Hillary Clinton 15.77% (6,619 votes)

Jim Webb 3.47% (1,455 votes)

Martin O'Malley 2.69% (1,128 votes)

Lincoln Chafee 0.59% (254 votes)

http://fox5sandiego.com/2015/10/13/poll-who-won-the-cnn-democratic-debate/

LMAO you might as well as NYtimes writers to vote:)

_____________________________

(•_•)
<) )╯SUCH
/ \

\(•_•)
( (> A NASTY
/ \

(•_•)
<) )> WOMAN
/ \

Duchess Of Dissent
Dont Hate Love

(in reply to Musicmystery)

Post #: 15

RE: CNN Democrat debate - 10/14/2015 5:54:37 AM

Lucylastic

Posts: 40310
Status: offline

Why didnt we have "polls" on the first republican debate(even the second ) from left leaning websites?
voting on a website poll is being taken seriously now?
really?

oh thats right we waited for the actual poll companies to announce their findings.

_____________________________

(•_•)
<) )╯SUCH
/ \

\(•_•)
( (> A NASTY
/ \

(•_•)
<) )> WOMAN
/ \

Duchess Of Dissent
Dont Hate Love

(in reply to Lucylastic)

Post #: 16

RE: CNN Democrat debate - 10/14/2015 6:15:09 AM

Kirata

Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

It appears that Mr Groseclose might have an agenda of his own. According to wiki:

The fact the some people disagree with his findings is hardly evidence of anything. Science is quantitative, so that line of bitching is nonsense, and impugning his motives in the absence of any quantitative evidence of bias is simply yellow journalism.

More directly to the point, reviews can be biased too. For example, the Huffington Post review cites Media Matters, an avowedly "progressive" organization, and the author of the Washington Times piece is the head of the Media Research Center, a conservative content-analysis group, who complains because their studies weren't cited!

I'm afraid you'll have to do better than that if you want to be taken seriously.

K.

< Message edited by Kirata -- 10/14/2015 6:17:28 AM >

(in reply to tweakabelle)

Post #: 17

RE: CNN Democrat debate - 10/14/2015 6:49:10 AM

Greta75

Posts: 9968
Joined: 2/6/2011
Status: offline

quote:

How do you achieve that?

You have to set up a department dedicated to things like that, engage companies, get them involve, anyway, it's a whole process, but my country has a system where the government helps jobless people upgrade themselves by subsidising 90% of their upgrading courses and work with companies to give them jobs and a pathway to move up, after they upgrade themselves. On top of that, the welfare will be given out accordance to how much effort they have put in to get motivated to work for what they want. So they get rewarded for the work they put in, into improving themselves. If they do nothing, they get nothing. We have no welfare, we call this work fare.

quote:

nothing to do with nepotism, corruption, greed cheating, lying, and treating employees like shit. That is more than a mindset
its a psychosis.

For anybody to rise out of poverty and from the worst upbringing and conditions and the worst injustice, it's all about mindset, they need to groom this mindset in people. If people can change the way they look at things and how they think, they can achieve what they want in the most difficult situations. Like come on! How did Carson become a top Surgeon? He could have ended up like any other kids from his neighbourhood and even get into gangs and stuffs and his life could have been totally different. Nelson Mandela was imprisoned forever and then became President. I mean, there are many inspirational real stories of people with special mindset that overcome their own difficult situations and make something of themselves. How do we impart this mindset to help people who are struggling? This is the key to eliminating wealth gap. Most failures involves giving up in despair. And personally for me, everytime when I hear stories of a self-made millionaire from themselves, the amount of failures and road blocks they face to get there is crazy. I would have given up a long time ago if I were them. Perhaps the government should look into free life coaching for these people, on top of upgrading programs for them to have a second chance in life.

quote:

I dont disagree that there should be training and upgrading skills. But having worked with government, local communities and sponsors of programs for skills training many are run abysmally, there are not enough programs, enough funding, enough intention to see it through. And way to many people to fill every spot available.

I come from a different country where this is possible, taxes one of the top lowest in the world, our surpluses are in multi-billions and we have all these programs. I don't know how our government balance our budget and make it happen, but any contractors who wanted government contract over here, usually can't do it for profit. Most are willing to tender at a loss, just to have the job in their resume and earn their profits elsewhere. We even have American companies here tendering for government jobs at huge losses to them. So somehow, our budgeting is really good. The countries who are struggling with this and are charging way higher taxes definitely need to fix their budget and negotiation skills.

< Message edited by Greta75 -- 10/14/2015 6:55:37 AM >

(in reply to Lucylastic)

Post #: 18

RE: CNN Democrat debate - 10/14/2015 6:55:06 AM

mnottertail

Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

It appears that Mr Groseclose might have an agenda of his own. According to wiki:

The fact the some people disagree with his findings is hardly evidence of anything. Science is quantitative, so that line of bitching is nonsense, and impugning his motives in the absence of any quantitative evidence of bias is simply yellow journalism.

More directly to the point, reviews can be biased too. For example, the Huffington Post review cites Media Matters, an avowedly "progressive" organization, and the author of the Washington Times piece is the head of the Media Research Center, a conservative content-analysis group, who complains because their studies weren't cited!

I'm afraid you'll have to do better than that if you want to be taken seriously.

K.

And that may be, what quantity in terms of dollars has mr groseclose received from 'conservative' organs, to find exactly what he has found? Just because it is ad hom circumstantial does not make it worthy of any less consideration.

Washington Times which is owned by the Sun Myung Moon estate, and also an employer of mr groseclose, doesn't have a quantitatively correct scientific view of these things.

< Message edited by mnottertail -- 10/14/2015 7:03:42 AM >

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30

(in reply to Kirata)

Post #: 19

RE: CNN Democrat debate - 10/14/2015 7:08:57 AM

tweakabelle

Posts: 7522
Joined: 10/16/2007
From: Sydney Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

It appears that Mr Groseclose might have an agenda of his own. According to wiki:

The fact the some people disagree with his findings is hardly evidence of anything. Science is quantitative, so that line of bitching is nonsense, and impugning his motives in the absence of any quantitative evidence of bias is simply yellow journalism.

More directly to the point, reviews can be biased too. For example, the Huffington Post review cites Media Matters, an avowedly "progressive" organization, and the author of the Washington Times piece is the head of the Media Research Center, a conservative content-analysis group, who complains because their studies weren't cited!

I'm afraid you'll have to do better than that if you want to be taken seriously.

K.

Groseclose appears to be the only other person in the world who considers The Drudge Report to be "slightly left of centre".

It seems that Mr Drudge might not like the label either. According to wiki:
"Matt Drudge has said that he is a conservative".

No one else quoted in wiki thinks it's left of centre either:

"Some regard the Drudge Report as conservative in tone,[49][50][51][52][53][54][55] and it has been referred to in the media as "a conservative news aggregator".[56] In 2008, Richard Siklos, an editor of Fortune magazine, called the Drudge Report a "conservative bullhorn".[57] Peter Wallsten, writing in the Los Angeles Times, labelled Drudge a "well-known conservative warrior";[58] Saul Hansell, writing in the New York Times, referred to him as a "conservative muckraker";[59] and Glenn Greenwald, writing in the New York Magazine, called him a "right-wing hack".[60] Greenwald also wrote that the Drudge Report—inter alia—is part of the "Bush/Cheney right-wing noise machine"

and:
"Drudge, along with his website, was labelled one of the "Top 10 anti-Barack Obama conservatives" by the US editor of The Daily Telegraph in February 2009."

Of course, you can continue claiming this obviously biased academic who is clearly pushing his own agenda is an objective source if you please. Mr Groseclose apparently doesn't bother to hide his political bias so why you should try to do so is a bit of a mystery to me.

Whatever the case, it's your credibility (and Groseclose's) that is the issue here, not mine. For as long as you peddle such biased rubbish as "objective science" that credibility will suffer accordingly and you will earn every bit of the derision you receive.

< Message edited by tweakabelle -- 10/14/2015 7:12:13 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Kirata)

Post #: 20

Page: [1] 2 3 4 next > >>

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> CNN Democrat debate

Page: [1] 2 3 4 next > >>

Jump to:

New Messages	No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages	Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages	Locked w/o New Messages

Post New Thread

Reply to Message

Post New Poll

Submit Vote

Delete My Own Post

Delete My Own Thread

Rate Posts

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.109