Type “full Democratic debate” at the Youtube prompt and scroll until you find a video at least 2 hours long.
Be sure to e-mail CNN and ask if the video is authorized before you download it.
That’s not even remotely the Democratic position.
I literally LOL’d at the Lewis Black comparison. You are right! I never noticed that before. But I’m having trouble understanding in what universe you think that maps to “strong”. 
In the universe where I reside, coming off like Lewis Black is waayyyy down the list of “personality characteristics that allow a presidential candidate to meet the minimum standard of electability”. I suppose it’s better than coming off like Crispin Glover or Bobcat Goldthwait, but not by much.
It’s a non-issue, really? Funny then that a “socialist” is the only category Gallup could find that would make people more unwilling to vote for someone to be president than “Muslim” or “atheist” (and by quite a margin). Furthermore, Bernie has tried hard to convince people he is not that kind of socialist, but rather the more moderate kind found in Scandinavia. You are shrugging and saying “sure he went to USSR–he already said he was a socialist, so duh” which undermines that whole pivot away from Soviet style socialism toward Scandinavian social democracies.
And you act like the USSR was ancient history, when in fact any moderately intelligent person over the age of 40 (or even a bit younger) should remember it as an ongoing concern. Anyone over 30 should remember it being referenced in the news as a recently defunct country, and any educated adult or teenager should be aware of it in any case.
Wait, did I just see a Republican acknowledge that the current low unemployment numbers are legit? Whoa.
I agree on all of this, except that Dean passed his sell-by date circa 2003 IMO. 
**BobLibDem **says O’Malley has a lock on the second spot if he wants it, but I don’t see that. It’s clear this is what he is angling for, but I don’t see what he brings to the table. Maryland is a safe blue state, and O’Malley is a white guy. Bzzzzt, thanks for playing, Martin, we have some nice parting gifts for you.
Agreed on both points. Which is why it was so bizarre for him to shout at Clinton and O’Malley to stop shouting! :smack:
Your first sentence is correct, but I guarantee Warren is not on the short list. Sherrod Brown would be a good pick: he’s a good pol, he’s from a crucial swing state, and progressives love him. One of the Castro brothers could be a possibility as well.
No, Clinton and Biden are in the same “establishment” lane, favored by primary voters who put a premium on electability. Polls that compare the numbers with or without Biden show that when Biden is taken out of play, Hillary’s lead over Bernie actually grows significantly. I am an example of this dynamic: they are the only two candidates I have seriously considered supporting, even though I dislike Biden (I just worried for a while that Hillary was looking too weak and needed an electable replacement).
Pfffft. I think just the opposite: Hillary was so strong, his advisers have probably waved him off if they have any sense.
In a related vein:
This is such a great observation. QFT
Yes, exactly. Webb’s whining for time was pathetic, and I thought he got more time than he deserved. Either kick him and Chaffee off the stage altogether, or let them stand in the wings and tell them to be grateful for any scraps of time they get at all, unless and until their poll numbers stop flatlining (i.e., never).
In reverse order:
-
He’s qualified to BE President. He’s just not qualified to be ELECTED President. The 22nd Amendment doesn’t bar a twice-elected President from succeeding to the office of the President upon the deaths of those ahead of him/her in the line of succession, should s/he occupy one of the offices in that line.
-
The Constitution doesn’t say they must have the same qualifications, just that you must be qualified to BE President in order to be Vice-President.
-
Hillary’s not going to pick Bill for her running mate anyway, so the whole thing’s moot.
I think that’s highly debatable. As FactCheck.org says:
Here is the relevant text of the amendment:
You worked backward in your answer; working the logic here backward, I could actually see the merit of a seemingly bizarre argument that maybe the following would be the technically correct way to play it out:
(1) Bill is allowed to become vice president.
(2) Hillary dies or resigns. We’ll say it is with more than two years left in her term, so call it July 4, 2017.
(3) Bill does become president, again. Still okay so far.
(4) The SCOTUS rules that on July 4, 2019, Bill stops being president and his successor (the new veep, or the House Speaker if there is no VP) becomes president. The rationale being that if he stays longer than two years, he will have both been elected twice and also will have served more than two years of another president’s term, and you can’t do that.
ETA: Yes, I can see the argument for the verb tenses (“has” and “shall”) allowing for him to continue past the two year mark. But the factcheckers are dubious this could actually fly.
Wouldn’t that depend on the definition of “is”?
I think most Americans would disagree. Issues like income inequality, the environment, gun control, sustainable energy, Citizens United, Wall Street reform, etc. are real issues most people care about. All the GOP wants to do is continue demonizing gays, blacks, women, immigrants and the poor, all done while fellating the ghost of Ronald Reagan. And of course Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi! And how Hillary=Satan.
Here is a comparison of what has been discussed in each parites debates thus far. From my standpoint the topics the Dems discussed are more relevant to me and most other people than the BS the GOP wants to go on about. You of course may disagree.
As has already been pointed out by another poster, NO ONE said that. You made it up.
This is the depressing part of the process where Clinton rolls over the opposition, despite her donor list looking like the league of evil. About the best you can hope for, just for entertainment value, is for Sanders to keep throwing random molotovs like “Congress doesn’t regulate Wall Street, Wall Street regulates Congress.”
Clinton’s “cut it out” quote was pretty funny. Maybe she meant “cut me another check.” I’d like to see her asked about all the reports that her contributors know she has to pretend to be a reformer to trick liberals and she’s still playing ball and why we should trust anything she has to say. Even the chuckle heads at Fox figured that one out and aren’t taking that part of her plank seriously as an attack angle.
It gets better. I was at a Sanders rally recently, and he doesn’t accept the 5.1% number. He says that if you include all the people who have quit looking for work, it is closer to 10%. And he rattled off some numbers for youth unemployment ages 17-20. He says it is mid-30s for white kids, a little higher for Hispanics, and close to 50% for black kids.
He tied it into two points. One, we have crumbling infrastructure anyway, so let’s tax Wall Street and the wealthy to pay for a job-creating infrastructure program.
Two, getting young people into jobs or free college will help keep them out of our (Bernie says) explicitly racist and in need of reform criminal justice system, if not simply poverty. In the long run, an educated America will compete better than one with perpetual underclasses (he didn’t use the word ‘underclasses’, that’s my interpretation).
So he’s got some substance behind his ideas, and they do strike me personally as better for America than anyone else’s (plus, besides Trump, he’s the only candidate who isn’t bought). At the same time, my first comment on the way out of the rally was, “He’ll never get all that passed.”
Okay, time to look for the debate on YouTube. CNN says it’s ok
Politifact says Half True
Sounds like he’s talking about U-6. The Bureau of Labor Statistics has 6 measures of unemployment, labeled (surprise!) U-1 through U-6. U-3 is the measure that has long been regarded as THE measure of unemployment, but there are arguments for using a broader measure like U-6.
For the most part, though, the different measures increase and decrease together. But if, for instance, U-6 was normally much lower than 10% when U-3 was at 5.1% as it is now (haven’t looked to see if that’s true or not), then you’d want to pay more attention to U-6 than usual, because it was telling you something the headline rate wasn’t picking up.
If Clinton meant anything she said, she’d lost a lot of those donors. They know it’s campaign talk.
Except for the fact that journalists don’t happen on television, you make a good point.
Ghod, I hope you’re wrong about this. If you’re right, the Dems are violating the very important dictum that you don’t interrupt your opponent while he’s busy destroying himself.
I thought his name was Durwood.
I mean Darren. Darren!
So, what Hillary should do is get herself elected Vice President in 2016, 2020, 2024, and so on, and actually run the show from the Naval Observatory until she conks out…
(I would have made the suggestion about Bill or Barack, but that it’s too late for that angle to work for them.)
Thanks. Interesting. I still find Bernie’s proposals for our youths intriguing.
So Bernie scores a point, and has a plan to address this specific problem.
Having watched just the opening comments, I feel like Bernie was best. He wasn’t the only one that seemed genuine, but he seemed more genuine, and Hillary seemed to have that pasted smile. Bernie was also the most specific and un-platituderiffic. He identifies a series of specific problems that he intends to address. Hillary’s talk sounds good, but sometimes her rhetoric sounds a little weasely, like “use the opportunity of climate change to grow the economy”, or something like that. Seriously, Bernie says he’ll move us away from fossil fuels, Hillary says she’s going to “grow the economy”- Bernie wins on climate change thus far.
Hillary seems prepared to retouch her weaseliness with comments like, “The economy isn’t money, it’s people” or something like that. She wants everyone to reach “their God-given potential”, which I can’t dispute, except maybe for people’s natural, not-God given potential… I still agree, though again I find Bernie more concrete. Hillary said a lot of good things but it seemed far more compromised than Bernie’s Straight Dope.
The other guys said some stuff, didn’t look awful, I missed some of that part because of a compromised link…
Hillary: “I’m the most presidential of anyone on this stage. And I have the biggest balls.”
Bernie: “Don’t be afraid of the word ‘socialist’. Be afraid of me yelling at you for the next thirteen months.”
O’Malley: “Hey, I’ve actually accomplished some of the stuff y’all are talking about. And I’m cute. Wouldn’t I make a great vice-prez?”
Webb: “I’m an old-school Southern Democrat, from back when the party didn’t have to rely on the Negros and the Mexicans to win elections. In other words, I’m a Republican in drag.”
Chafee: “I like trees.”
At least, that’s how it seemed to me.
(I chuckled a bit a Clinton’s story of Obama and her going through a hotel look for the Chinese. I can just picture them, crashing random doors:
BAM, crash
“Occupato!”
“Oh, scusi, Signor Berlusconi, didn’t mean to disturb you…”
[sotto voce]“I thought he said she was his niece!” “Don’t go there, Mr. President.”)
Wow, Bernie pretty much said his campaign was about voter turnout to benefit Democrats when pressed by Cooper about not being a Capitalist. Hillary was clever to defend part of Bernie’s point while claiming the label of ‘Capitalist’ for herself, while those other 3 stooges just stood there.
I’m gonna be immodest for once, and simply say that I think my thinking’s more clear on this than Justin Bank’s is.
I certainly wouldn’t regard what I was doing as working ‘backward.’ I was working from what seemed like the obvious starting point: what the 22nd Amendment specifically excludes (being elected President after having been elected twice, or after having been elected once and having served more than half of another term), and therefore what it by omission unquestionably continues to allow (succeeding to the Presidency by deaths, resignations, impeachments, etc. of those ahead of one in line for the office, while holding an office in the line of succession).
This is unambiguous. There is no doubt. The 22nd Amendment doesn’t bar anyone from succeeding to the office of President that could have succeeded to the office before the 22nd Amendment was ratified.
Therefore it hasn’t made anyone ineligible to the office of President who used to be eligible to the office of President before the 22nd Amendment was passed. So it hasn’t made anyone ineligible to the office of Vice President per the 12th Amendment.
Seriously, where’s the hole in this logic? AFAICT, each step is airtight at the level of mathematical proof - which is hardly usual in non-math contexts.
Obviously, the Supreme Court can decide whatever it damn well pleases. But the logic of the 22nd Amendment is clear: it sets limits on the number of times one can be elected to the office of President. One of those limits is that IF you’ve already served more than half of someone else’s term, THEN you can only be elected President once.
The implication arrow doesn’t run backwards: it doesn’t say that if you’ve been elected more than once, you can’t serve more than half of someone else’s term. The Amendment is completely silent on the subject of serving parts of others’ terms after having been elected to and served two terms. Claiming it says anything about that when it doesn’t would be a travesty of logic.
There really is no ambiguity to the 22nd Amendment. It is narrow and focused and precise in its scope. It sets clear and specific limits on being elected President, but only on being elected President. End of story.