Democratic Debate (1 Viewer)

[Willie Neslon]

Well the "sadly" part is a personal opinion. But everything else is what I believe to be true.

I guess I'm shocked then.

 

[timschochet]

Well the "sadly" part is a personal opinion. But everything else is what I believe to be true.

I guess I'm shocked then.

Whixh part do you disagree with and why?

 

[Willie Neslon]

Well the "sadly" part is a personal opinion. But everything else is what I believe to be true.

I guess I'm shocked then.

Whixh part do you disagree with and why?

All of it because it's not what actually happened.

 

[timschochet]

Conservatives attacking Hillary for the bathroom break: http://www.redstate.com/2015/12/20/hillarys-potty-break-matter-depends/

Just when you think they've run out of stuff to rip her on...

 

[timschochet]

Well the "sadly" part is a personal opinion. But everything else is what I believe to be true.

I guess I'm shocked then.

Whixh part do you disagree with and why?

All of it because it's not what actually happened.

Its exactly what happened. They stole stuff. That's why a guy was fired and Bernie apologized. They sued the DNC to get money from their supporters. The money came in because many Bernie fans hate the DNC (for no good reason but that parts my opinion).

 

[Willie Neslon]

Well the "sadly" part is a personal opinion. But everything else is what I believe to be true.

I guess I'm shocked then.

Whixh part do you disagree with and why?

All of it because it's not what actually happened.

Its exactly what happened. They stole stuff. That's why a guy was fired and Bernie apologized. They sued the DNC to get money from their supporters. The money came in because many Bernie fans hate the DNC (for no good reason but that parts my opinion).

Is it stealing if the Brinks truck makes the money drop on your front porch instead of the bank? They sued the DNC because the penalty was excessive and unfair. Money came in because his message gets people to donate. The paper of record has called out DWS for being in the tank. It's been obvious from day one. Bernie supporters aren't making anything up. Hillary supporters see this too, they just don't complain about it.

 

[timschochet]

Well the "sadly" part is a personal opinion. But everything else is what I believe to be true.

I guess I'm shocked then.

Whixh part do you disagree with and why?

All of it because it's not what actually happened.

Its exactly what happened. They stole stuff. That's why a guy was fired and Bernie apologized. They sued the DNC to get money from their supporters. The money came in because many Bernie fans hate the DNC (for no good reason but that parts my opinion).

Is it stealing if the Brinks truck makes the money drop on your front porch instead of the bank? They sued the DNC because the penalty was excessive and unfair. Money came in because his message gets people to donate. The paper of record has called out DWS for being in the tank. It's been obvious from day one. Bernie supporters aren't making anything up. Hillary supporters see this too, they just don't complain about it.

OK Willie you seem to have bought in to the good vs evil theme that so many Bernie fans have succumbed to. I won't try to talk you out of it, but your glasses are awful rosy right now.

 

[Willie Neslon]

Well the "sadly" part is a personal opinion. But everything else is what I believe to be true.

I guess I'm shocked then.

Whixh part do you disagree with and why?

All of it because it's not what actually happened.

Its exactly what happened. They stole stuff. That's why a guy was fired and Bernie apologized. They sued the DNC to get money from their supporters. The money came in because many Bernie fans hate the DNC (for no good reason but that parts my opinion).

Is it stealing if the Brinks truck makes the money drop on your front porch instead of the bank? They sued the DNC because the penalty was excessive and unfair. Money came in because his message gets people to donate. The paper of record has called out DWS for being in the tank. It's been obvious from day one. Bernie supporters aren't making anything up. Hillary supporters see this too, they just don't complain about it.

OK Willie you seem to have bought in to the good vs evil theme that so many Bernie fans have succumbed to. I won't try to talk you out of it, but your glasses are awful rosy right now.

You brought in the evil with your accusatory original post. Honestly, Tim, you don't think DWS is in the tank for Hillary? She's the head of the DNC. Should the head of the DNC be in the tank for any one candidate (before the general)? How is wanting fairness a good vs. evil issue? Even to the most neutral observers it's been obvious that DWS has done everything she can to stack the deck.

 

[timschochet]

Ive already explained in detail what I think of Wasserman-Shultz, both good and bad. But it had nothing my to do with this situation. She overreacted IMO, but the main wrong was still done by the Sanders campaign.

 

[Willie Neslon]

Ive already explained in detail what I think of Wasserman-Shultz, both good and bad. But it had nothing my to do with this situation. She overreacted IMO, but the main wrong was still done by the Sanders campaign.

They were given access to data they shouldn't have been. One staffer (maybe more, we don't know yet) accessed the data and was fired.

 

[Dickies]

Free college and free health care paid for by the magic money tree. Got it.

Only you are saying it's free. Bernie has never claimed it will be free and I have never seen anyone who supports either of these concepts say they are free.

You are always bashing the ACA like it is the worst thing to ever happen to this country, but it's not. It is not perfect and it has many flaws, but healthcare costs have been increasing dramatically well before Obama was even running for President. As I said in the ACA thread, I could not get health insurance before this passed because I had cancer. What is the point of being the greatest nation on earth and pouring trillions into the military to protect this status if we cannot even afford basic human rights to a large percentage of our population?

That's weird, because it's right here on his website. Maybe he got hacked?

And, to be clear, I'm glad you got health insurance but it's MORE than just the numbers of uninsured that the Administration keeps touting (which aren't that great anyways).

The problem I have with the ACA is that pretty much everyone else's premiums, deductibles and copays have risen dramatically when we were told we would be SAVING money to the tune of $2500 a year. Well, he said the "Average American Family" but at this point it's clear no one in America fits into that category.

What good is having insurance if you can't afford to use it?

Tuition free does not mean free. It is still going to be paid for. IMHO he should drop the college tuition plan and stick to healthcare since it is an easier sell to the average American.

Even before ACA our health insurance was increasing at an unsustainable rate. When I was insured under a group plan my premiums were going up faster than any raises I was getting and I was actually taking home less money every year. In addition my coverage kept getting worse (higher co-pays and deductibles). I will agree that ACA did not fix this, and perhaps may have made it worse, but the reality is that our system was broken. As soon as I saw that we were not going to a single-payer system I was disappointed.

 

[quickhands]

Just tuned in. Has anyone explained how they are going to start dealing with our 19 trillion in debt?

The question of debt has not come up.

I admit to getting frustrated with all the candidates and dropping oit of the conversation the last few weeks. Has anyone on either side addressed the topic at all?

No. Usually the Republicans at least give it some lip service (though they never say what they're going to do about it) but not this time. Part of that may be because under Obama, the annual deficit has pretty much shrunk every year.

Going up quite a bit next year though

More debt converts into more GDP next year, why do you hate more GDP?

Bubble down?

 

[jon_mx]

The 19-trillion dollar gorrilla in the room which no one dares talk about. Maybe it is time for Perot.

 

[AAABatteries]

Just tuned in. Has anyone explained how they are going to start dealing with our 19 trillion in debt?

The question of debt has not come up.

I admit to getting frustrated with all the candidates and dropping out of the conversation the last few weeks. Has anyone on either side addressed the topic at all?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upifaeK0B5U

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Ive already explained in detail what I think of Wasserman-Shultz, both good and bad. But it had nothing my to do with this situation. She overreacted IMO, but the main wrong was still done by the Sanders campaign.

This is funny. Sanders sued the DNC, and the DNC totally capitulated.

 

[timschochet]

Ive already explained in detail what I think of Wasserman-Shultz, both good and bad. But it had nothing my to do with this situation. She overreacted IMO, but the main wrong was still done by the Sanders campaign.

This is funny. Sanders sued the DNC, and the DNC totally capitulated.

No, that's not what happened, despite the fact that you and others keep repeating it. The DNC instigated a temporary suspension of the Sanders campaign access to DNC voter records until the Sanders campaign went through some hoops to rectify their situation- they did- it was the Sanders campaign who capitulated- and the DNC lifted the suspension. The publicly announced lawsuit had nothing to do with it- I believe its sole purpose was to raise funds from supporters.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

That's hilarious. You acknowledge the 10 day provision, yes?

 

[timschochet]

That's hilarious. You acknowledge the 10 day provision, yes?

That was an overreaction.

 

[The Commish]

So she accepts the apology then sends her campaign robots on the Sunday morning circuit to bad mouth him. Awesome. So fake

Eta: never mind the irony of her getting bent out of shape over security

Are you new to politics and/or planet Earth?

no but I was told this time was going to be different.

No you weren't.

yeah. I was

 

[squistion]

Ive already explained in detail what I think of Wasserman-Shultz, both good and bad. But it had nothing my to do with this situation. She overreacted IMO, but the main wrong was still done by the Sanders campaign.

This is funny. Sanders sued the DNC, and the DNC totally capitulated.

No, that's not what happened, despite the fact that you and others keep repeating it.The DNC instigated a temporary suspension of the Sanders campaign access to DNC voter records until the Sanders campaign went through some hoops to rectify their situation- they did- it was the Sanders campaign who capitulated- and the DNC lifted the suspension. The publicly announced lawsuit had nothing to do with it- I believe its sole purpose was to raise funds from supporters.

Correct. All along the DNC was saying that as soon as the Sanders campaign met certain conditions (one was to agree to an independent audit) their access to the voter records would be restored. The Sanders' campaign complied and the suspension was listed.

 

[The Commish]

Just for ####s and giggles someone should ask Hillary what she'd do about a security beach like this. See if she picks up on the irony.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

That's hilarious. You acknowledge the 10 day provision, yes?

That was an overreaction.

You do acknowledge that an overreaction is 1. improper and 2. reactionary, right?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Ive already explained in detail what I think of Wasserman-Shultz, both good and bad. But it had nothing my to do with this situation. She overreacted IMO, but the main wrong was still done by the Sanders campaign.

This is funny. Sanders sued the DNC, and the DNC totally capitulated.

No, that's not what happened, despite the fact that you and others keep repeating it.The DNC instigated a temporary suspension of the Sanders campaign access to DNC voter records until the Sanders campaign went through some hoops to rectify their situation- they did- it was the Sanders campaign who capitulated- and the DNC lifted the suspension. The publicly announced lawsuit had nothing to do with it- I believe its sole purpose was to raise funds from supporters.

Correct. All along the DNC was saying that as soon as the Sanders campaign met certain conditions (one was to agree to an independent audit) their access to the voter records would be restored. The Sanders' campaign complied and the suspension was listed.

The audit was required by the contract.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Just for ####s and giggles someone should ask Hillary what she'd do about a security beach like this. See if she picks up on the irony.

That would be funny, right?

I keep thinking some sycophantic reporter in her coterie will ask her to tell us how data breaches and our top secrets can best be protected, tell us, oh Hillary, how will you protect our country?

 

[squistion]

Ive already explained in detail what I think of Wasserman-Shultz, both good and bad. But it had nothing my to do with this situation. She overreacted IMO, but the main wrong was still done by the Sanders campaign.

This is funny. Sanders sued the DNC, and the DNC totally capitulated.

No, that's not what happened, despite the fact that you and others keep repeating it.The DNC instigated a temporary suspension of the Sanders campaign access to DNC voter records until the Sanders campaign went through some hoops to rectify their situation- they did- it was the Sanders campaign who capitulated- and the DNC lifted the suspension. The publicly announced lawsuit had nothing to do with it- I believe its sole purpose was to raise funds from supporters.

Correct. All along the DNC was saying that as soon as the Sanders campaign met certain conditions (one was to agree to an independent audit) their access to the voter records would be restored. The Sanders' campaign complied and the suspension was listed.

The audit was required by the contract.

But they hadn't agreed to have it done.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Ive already explained in detail what I think of Wasserman-Shultz, both good and bad. But it had nothing my to do with this situation. She overreacted IMO, but the main wrong was still done by the Sanders campaign.

This is funny. Sanders sued the DNC, and the DNC totally capitulated.

No, that's not what happened, despite the fact that you and others keep repeating it.The DNC instigated a temporary suspension of the Sanders campaign access to DNC voter records until the Sanders campaign went through some hoops to rectify their situation- they did- it was the Sanders campaign who capitulated- and the DNC lifted the suspension. The publicly announced lawsuit had nothing to do with it- I believe its sole purpose was to raise funds from supporters.

Correct. All along the DNC was saying that as soon as the Sanders campaign met certain conditions (one was to agree to an independent audit) their access to the voter records would be restored. The Sanders' campaign complied and the suspension was listed.

The audit was required by the contract.

But they hadn't agreed to have it done.

It was in the agreement whereby they created the database. The DNC was bound to do an independent audit before acting.

 

[Sinn Fein]

Ive already explained in detail what I think of Wasserman-Shultz, both good and bad. But it had nothing my to do with this situation. She overreacted IMO, but the main wrong was still done by the Sanders campaign.

This is funny. Sanders sued the DNC, and the DNC totally capitulated.

No, that's not what happened, despite the fact that you and others keep repeating it.The DNC instigated a temporary suspension of the Sanders campaign access to DNC voter records until the Sanders campaign went through some hoops to rectify their situation- they did- it was the Sanders campaign who capitulated- and the DNC lifted the suspension. The publicly announced lawsuit had nothing to do with it- I believe its sole purpose was to raise funds from supporters.

Correct. All along the DNC was saying that as soon as the Sanders campaign met certain conditions (one was to agree to an independent audit) their access to the voter records would be restored. The Sanders' campaign complied and the suspension was listed.

The audit was required by the contract.

But they hadn't agreed to have it done.

Sanders team requested an independent audit from the very start - they still think it is possible that Clinton's team may have seen Sanders data as well.

Because the DNC cut off access - Sanders team did not have any access to the files to determine what went on - so what they provided the DNC on Friday night - was no different than what they originally provided the DNC.

The DNC completely backed down on this when it became obvious that the DNC had breached the contract, and when it became obvious that Sanders had spun this episode into positive momentum - financially and otherwise.

 

[squistion]

Ive already explained in detail what I think of Wasserman-Shultz, both good and bad. But it had nothing my to do with this situation. She overreacted IMO, but the main wrong was still done by the Sanders campaign.

This is funny. Sanders sued the DNC, and the DNC totally capitulated.

No, that's not what happened, despite the fact that you and others keep repeating it.The DNC instigated a temporary suspension of the Sanders campaign access to DNC voter records until the Sanders campaign went through some hoops to rectify their situation- they did- it was the Sanders campaign who capitulated- and the DNC lifted the suspension. The publicly announced lawsuit had nothing to do with it- I believe its sole purpose was to raise funds from supporters.

Correct. All along the DNC was saying that as soon as the Sanders campaign met certain conditions (one was to agree to an independent audit) their access to the voter records would be restored. The Sanders' campaign complied and the suspension was listed.

The audit was required by the contract.

But they hadn't agreed to have it done.

It was in the agreement whereby they created the database. The DNC was bound to do an independent audit before acting.

Which the Sanders campaign initially refused to go along with.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Ive already explained in detail what I think of Wasserman-Shultz, both good and bad. But it had nothing my to do with this situation. She overreacted IMO, but the main wrong was still done by the Sanders campaign.

This is funny. Sanders sued the DNC, and the DNC totally capitulated.

No, that's not what happened, despite the fact that you and others keep repeating it.The DNC instigated a temporary suspension of the Sanders campaign access to DNC voter records until the Sanders campaign went through some hoops to rectify their situation- they did- it was the Sanders campaign who capitulated- and the DNC lifted the suspension. The publicly announced lawsuit had nothing to do with it- I believe its sole purpose was to raise funds from supporters.

Correct. All along the DNC was saying that as soon as the Sanders campaign met certain conditions (one was to agree to an independent audit) their access to the voter records would be restored. The Sanders' campaign complied and the suspension was listed.

The audit was required by the contract.

But they hadn't agreed to have it done.

It was in the agreement whereby they created the database. The DNC was bound to do an independent audit before acting.

Which the Sanders campaign initially refused to go along with.

Where do you get that?

The Sanders campaign turned over data from the vendor showing that there had been no download of information. That information is just as readily available to the DNC, even more so.

You see retention of unauthorized data is improper, not merely accessing it.

 

[squistion]

Ive already explained in detail what I think of Wasserman-Shultz, both good and bad. But it had nothing my to do with this situation. She overreacted IMO, but the main wrong was still done by the Sanders campaign.

This is funny. Sanders sued the DNC, and the DNC totally capitulated.

No, that's not what happened, despite the fact that you and others keep repeating it.The DNC instigated a temporary suspension of the Sanders campaign access to DNC voter records until the Sanders campaign went through some hoops to rectify their situation- they did- it was the Sanders campaign who capitulated- and the DNC lifted the suspension. The publicly announced lawsuit had nothing to do with it- I believe its sole purpose was to raise funds from supporters.

Correct. All along the DNC was saying that as soon as the Sanders campaign met certain conditions (one was to agree to an independent audit) their access to the voter records would be restored. The Sanders' campaign complied and the suspension was listed.

The audit was required by the contract.

But they hadn't agreed to have it done.

It was in the agreement whereby they created the database. The DNC was bound to do an independent audit before acting.

Which the Sanders campaign initially refused to go along with.

Where do you get that?

The Sanders campaign turned over data from teh vendor showing that there had been no download of information.

You see retention of unauthorized data is improper, not merely accessing it.

The DNC made a statement to that effect Saturday night of the conditions needed to restore access to the Sanders campaign and that was among them.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Ive already explained in detail what I think of Wasserman-Shultz, both good and bad. But it had nothing my to do with this situation. She overreacted IMO, but the main wrong was still done by the Sanders campaign.

This is funny. Sanders sued the DNC, and the DNC totally capitulated.

No, that's not what happened, despite the fact that you and others keep repeating it.The DNC instigated a temporary suspension of the Sanders campaign access to DNC voter records until the Sanders campaign went through some hoops to rectify their situation- they did- it was the Sanders campaign who capitulated- and the DNC lifted the suspension. The publicly announced lawsuit had nothing to do with it- I believe its sole purpose was to raise funds from supporters.

Correct. All along the DNC was saying that as soon as the Sanders campaign met certain conditions (one was to agree to an independent audit) their access to the voter records would be restored. The Sanders' campaign complied and the suspension was listed.

The audit was required by the contract.

But they hadn't agreed to have it done.

It was in the agreement whereby they created the database. The DNC was bound to do an independent audit before acting.

Which the Sanders campaign initially refused to go along with.

Where do you get that?

The Sanders campaign turned over data from the vendor showing that there had been no download of information.

You see retention of unauthorized data is improper, not merely accessing it.

The DNC made a statement to that effect Saturday night of the conditions needed to restore access to the Sanders campaign and that was among them.

Which Sanders denies. Odd that.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Sanders campaign statement:

The DNC should immediately audit its vendor to ensure compliance.

Sanders campaign could not conduct an audit, order an audit or stop an audit.

Also this:

He [Weaver (Sanders campaign)] said that the campaign experienced a similar issue in October. Weaver said that the Sanders campaign is "confident" that some of its data was erroneously sent to another Democratic campaign at that time.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/bernie-sanders-lawsuit-threat-dnc

Well now that sounds an awful lot like the Sanders claim in his lawsuit that Hillary had done this to Obama in 2008.

Sounds like the DNC got out ahead of the allegation and turned the table.

-> Dirty. Trick.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I wonder if we will ever hear of the results of this audit and how far back it goes?

 

[Slapdash]

Did Sanders wipe the stolen data with a cloth?

 

[timschochet]

I wonder if we will ever hear of the results of this audit and how far back it goes?

Somebody has to wonder about such things; better you than me.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I wonder if we will ever hear of the results of this audit and how far back it goes?

Somebody has to wonder about such things; better you than me.

The DNC won't, that's for sure. Into the of history it shall go.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Here's what I got from the little but I watched...

The Democrats aren't the party of fear but if you vote for Republicans you should know that they're coming for your grandparents, uteri, and your, sic, upgraded healthcare.

 

[timschochet]

Here's what I got from the little but I watched...

The Democrats aren't the party of fear but if you vote for Republicans you should know that they're coming for your grandparents, uteri, and your, sic, upgraded healthcare.

Given who their two frontrunners are, there's lots of reasons to be fearful of the Republican Party right now.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Here's what I got from the little but I watched...

The Democrats aren't the party of fear but if you vote for Republicans you should know that they're coming for your grandparents, uteri, and your, sic, upgraded healthcare.

Given who their two frontrunners are, there's lots of reasons to be fearful of the Republican Party right now.

Well that might be true, but if you're going to declare you're not a fear monger in one breath you probably shouldn't monger fear with your next. That's all.

 

[RCon]

It's so adorable when Clinton supporters accuse others of cheating and lying.

 

[cubd8]

Here's what I got from the little but I watched...

The Democrats aren't the party of fear but if you vote for Republicans you should know that they're coming for your grandparents, uteri, and your, sic, upgraded healthcare.

Did they explain (or were they asked) how they plan on paying for the new programs they want? If so, did the answers provide a clear answer as to how they would be paid for?

 

[Reaper]

What ever happened with that Island Of Underage Debauchery that Bill was hanging out on......

That's all I want to know, I'd even see the movie.

 

[Sinn Fein]

Lowest rated debate...so far.

Thanks Debbie - doing an awesome job as a Hillary's campaign chair.

 

[MaxThreshold]

Here's what I got from the little but I watched...

The Democrats aren't the party of fear but if you vote for Republicans you should know that they're coming for your grandparents, uteri, and your, sic, upgraded healthcare.

Did they explain (or were they asked) how they plan on paying for the new programs they want? If so, did the answers provide a clear answer as to how they would be paid for?

Oh, yeah, the usual "tax the 1%" nonsense.

Everyone knows that by "1%" they really mean "Everyone", but using the "tax the 1%" line they hope they can fool people into voting for them.

 

[Sinn Fein]

Sanders campaign calls on Clinton to join in demanding an independent audit going back to the start of the campaign...

 

[The Commish]

Sanders campaign calls on Clinton to join in demanding an independent audit going back to the start of the campaign...

so awesome. Hahaha

 

[Slapdash]

Lowest rated debate...so far.

Thanks Debbie - doing an awesome job as a Hillary's campaign chair.

They're going to be very miffed when the GOP wins the election because they actually motivated people to turn out. You win national elections by turning out your base.

 

[lod01]

Conservatives attacking Hillary for the bathroom break: http://www.redstate.com/2015/12/20/hillarys-potty-break-matter-depends/

Just when you think they've run out of stuff to rip her on...

She had a blow out at the debate? Probably a 6.5 on the Richter scale.

 

[timschochet]

Lowest rated debate...so far.

Thanks Debbie - doing an awesome job as a Hillary's campaign chair.

They're going to be very miffed when the GOP wins the election because they actually motivated people to turn out. You win national elections by turning out your base.

Thats false. You win by capturing the center.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

Lowest rated debate...so far.

Thanks Debbie - doing an awesome job as a Hillary's campaign chair.

They're going to be very miffed when the GOP wins the election because they actually motivated people to turn out. You win national elections by turning out your base.

Thats false. You win by capturing the center.

How many people are really in the center? I know several that claim they are but talk to them for 15 minutes and they aren't. You really do win by motivating people to turn out and really only in the toss-up states. Some states are going blue and some red no matter what.