2nd Democratic presidential debate this Friday 11/06/15

[KingOrfeo]

Oh it's true...I bet anything it comes to Bush v. Clinton.

The way things are going for Jeb, he might not even make it to Super Tuesday.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Don't fool yourself. Hillary is no saint and I wouldn't elect her to be dog catcher. I don't buy the Foster conspiracy, but the woman is just plain creepy. TBH she's been slobbing Establishment knob for so long that I don't buy any of her schlok. She's just paying lip service to the issues. She isn't in this for the country, she just wants the power and feel it's "owed" to her.

All of which would still make her a better choice for POTUS than the best Republican in America.

 

[mark_j]

All of which would still maker a better choice for POTUS than the best Republican in America.

That's your opinion.

 

[KingOrfeo]

That's your opinion.

It is borne out by history. We haven't had a decent Republican POTUS since Ike. Things go better under Dems -- even things Pubs claim to care the most about, like the deficit.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Don't fool yourself. Hillary is no saint and I wouldn't elect her to be dog catcher. I don't buy the Foster conspiracy, but the woman is just plain creepy. TBH she's been slobbing Establishment knob for so long that I don't buy any of her schlok. She's just paying lip service to the issues. She isn't in this for the country, she just wants the power and feel it's "owed" to her.

I don't pretend to think she's a saint. All old people are creepy, she certainly scares me less than Judi Dench and not just because Judi might send someone to murder me in my sleep.

Of cuorse she's in this for the country, it's rather absurd to say anything else. The only person to run that I've ever had any doubts on that are Trump. Now of course she feels it's owed to her. Every single move she's made for the last thirty years or so have been specifically taken to get her to the throne. I'd be pissed if I didn't get it after that kind of dedication too. Now it's not owed to her, nothing is owed to anybody. I don't care if you were literally trained from birth in a sport that doesn't mean the Olympics owe you a gold medal or even an invitation (or however you get on the teams) but you've every right to be pissed. Hell if you aren't i want to dissect you because you're either a lizardperson in disguise or a robot sent from the future to eliminate John Connor.

 

[BotanyBoy]

It's a matter of perspective based on a lot of things. I think Obama is slightly more interested in the middle class than Hillary, I think he wants a genuine solution to immigration reform, I think he kinda almost cares about the environment. He's a dove (at least by the radical thing that is US standards.)

It is based on a lot of things but let's not try and underplay the power of the the wallet among those things. There is a reason pretty much everyone in green energy is a democrat....defense contractors republican....healthcare democrat....agriculture republican and on and on and on.

It's because one party backs your money maker and the other party is more than likely totally fucking hostile to it. People vote their wallets and judge elected officials based upon how much money they get......if not then the lemmings buy too much into partisan dog and pony show on CNN/FOX and don't really understand what the fuck is going on.

Sure....occasionally it's not money related and we all get together to unfuck some shit. But the other 99.9999% of the time.

Most of us ultimately realize that we have a lot of first world problems and we bitch because we don't have anything better to do.

And that's why our politics have deovled into sending a lawyer to a capital to fuck other people out of as much money for you as possible.
https://images.rapgenius.com/de9ea95c35659061243ff382a79d9c36.500x533x1.png

I think Hillary's more pro military. She more experienced and more willing to fight. If we're talking Healthcare for example with 0 being UHC and 10 being zero government Obama wants a 3 and gets an 8 and calls it compromise. Hillary probably wants 6 but will actually get a seven. so net win? Sorta.

There is a fine line between change and burning the house down while you're in it. Trump and Carson represent burning the house down while you're in it. Sanders is just going for a hail mary. If it works GREAT but it doesn't work.

I think Hillary will straight gorilla pimp Americas Peachy ass for every dollar she can squeeze out of it.

I think after Obama failed to bring any of his promised change, at all, to America and it's politics mother fuckers are lighting matches and grabbing lighter fluid. I can only hope they set something on fire 2016. Because more of the same ol' shit isn't going to do us much good.

The way things are going for Jeb, he might not even make it to Super Tuesday.

I wouldn't count that kind of money and power out until it's out......

 

[Sean Renaud]

See I disagree with your assement. I think most greens are liberal because they are more likely to be educated. It's the same reason all the people who believe in Creationism are conservative and it ain't money. This is simple education vs religion. Pure as the driven snow. You could EASILY make money going green, especially if you had the government at your back to subsidize your efforts and hurt your competitors. And Big Oil (in the US at any rate) would still most likely win as they have the most money. If Exxon had to sell every asset they have at 10% of it's actual value and start up a solar company that would still put them at 10x anything you or I could muster so even if they were fuck ups and we were brilliant they'd more than likely win anyway.

See I only have first world problems. I'd rather things continue on exactly as they are than burn the house down. Especially since the kind of people willing to burn the house down aren't going to compromise after so we'd most likely end up as a Tea Party country.

 

[BotanyBoy]

See I disagree with your assement. I think most greens are liberal because they are more likely to be educated. It's the same reason all the people who believe in Creationism are conservative and it ain't money. This is simple education vs religion. Pure as the driven snow.

Yea it's education....not the hundreds of billions of dollars a year in government funding.

LMFAO....come on man. I know you love lefties but they ain't that fucking altruistic.

You could EASILY make money going green, especially if you had the government at your back to subsidize your efforts and hurt your competitors.

That's the only way they make money......if it weren't for the government funding the green energy business wouldn't be anything like it is now, it needs more development before it can be economically viable. Not that it's a bad thing, I'm all for going green....but no one does it because educated. They do it for the money and when it comes to voting they vote for the candidate that's got their industries back. If your paycheck comes from green energy there is an almost certain possibility that you're voting democrat.

Green sector folks simply do not vote for coal/oil backing republicans.

Much the same way coal miners and rough necks do NOT back green energy democrats......it's against their interest to do so. They vote their wallets.

And Big Oil (in the US at any rate) would still most likely win as they have the most money. If Exxon had to sell every asset they have at 10% of it's actual value and start up a solar company that would still put them at 10x anything you or I could muster so even if they were fuck ups and we were brilliant they'd more than likely win anyway.

Not with green energy they wouldn't....they would lose their fuckin' ass. Green ain't there yet.

Oil will dig its heels in and the gov will pour money into green and one day it will be able to stand on it's own and it will crush oil's balls with a 10lb sledge at which point they will likely cry government oppression.

But it's not doing that until the money is there, meaning it's gotta be cheaper than oil.

See I only have first world problems. I'd rather things continue on exactly as they are than burn the house down. Especially since the kind of people willing to burn the house down aren't going to compromise after so we'd most likely end up as a Tea Party country.

I agree...mostly because my life is pretty fucking sweet.

But that doesn't mean less fortunate people aren't tired of having a Bush/Obama/Clinton holding them down while the 1% fucks them in the ass. Most folks, esp the wage slaves are about fed the fuck up with that shit.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Exxon owns the government, or a huge chunk of it anyway. if they wanted the money to be there it would be. It's not because they really don't care that much.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Exxon owns the government, or a huge chunk of it anyway. if they wanted the money to be there it would be. It's not because they really don't care that much.

They do have it....

Doesn't mean the green energy boom isn't because a 300 billion dollar cash injection from the US government every year. And everyone in that industry votes fucking (D) because they know god damn good and well that's where the paycheck is. The same way everyone in oil/coal votes (R)...that's where their paycheck is. People vote their wallets...not their education.

 

[Sean Renaud]

I don't know or care if they do, they are low in numbers. The majority of the Republican Pary (voters) don't get shit from oil and one assumes that as long as they're energy costs remained neutral they wouldn't give a shit and they are who puts them into power ultimately.

The majority of the Democratic party (voters) don't get shit from green energy and as long as they get a feel good story about a seal riding a whale will be happy. They're generally willing to pay a bit more on their energy but not a whole lot (certainly not enough to install solar on their own.

However believing in global warming is like believing in evolution. You either think scientists should be trusted or you think liberals have concocted a plan to take your freedom so convoluted that even dr Drakken thinks you've over complicated things.

 

[BotanyBoy]

I don't know or care if they do, they are low in numbers. The majority of the Republican Pary (voters) don't get shit from oil and one assumes that as long as they're energy costs remained neutral they wouldn't give a shit and they are who puts them into power ultimately.

Yes they do, there are MILLIONS of people dependent upon the petroleum industry as a whole and when a Democrat gets up and talks about pouring billions into green energy so we can marginalize and hopefully get rid of fossil fuel dependency they see the ENEMY of their wallet. They see a politician who wants to destroy their way of life and they go vote for the other guy.

The majority of the Democratic party (voters) don't get shit from green energy and as long as they get a feel good story about a seal riding a whale will be happy. They're generally willing to pay a bit more on their energy but not a whole lot (certainly not enough to install solar on their own.

300 billion a year isn't shit? God damn baller how much you worth?? Wanna open a dispensary?

The feel good story is a bonus and helps bring the other members of the team along for the ride. But don't bullshit...300 billion buys a fuck ton of Democrat votes. People did not get into green energy because it's a lucrative business, or because democrats are just so fucking altruistic. They got into it because a democrat said if you develop this tech I'll float you the money until it becomes economically viable at which point you'll dominate the industry as the established leaders.

And everyone who got into it and everyone they do business with (a little under 300 billion a year) votes fucking Democrat because they aren't about to vote for the guy who wants to take their job away and destroy their way of life(R). From the janitor at Tesla to the big cheese at solar whateva and every contractor they do bidnizz with and all their people. Anyone that's not just a total fucking airhead will realize their paycheck is dependent on a certain number of democrats holding office and vote democrat.

Ain't got a fucking thing to do with education or warm fuzzies, those are absolutely secondary to the 300 billion dollars.

Just like damn near everyone who works for a defense contractor....republican. Must be because those dumb shit engineers that create all these super bad ass weapons are religious instead of educated at a liberal university right? God damn MI Jesus freaks!!!

That fat paycheck has NOTHING to do with it....LOL

However believing in global warming is like believing in evolution. You either think scientists should be trusted or you think liberals have concocted a plan to take your freedom so convoluted that even dr Drakken thinks you've over complicated things.

I'm not saying going green is bad.....I'm saying anyone involved with/dependent upon green energy, is going to vote Democrat, they would be fucking retards not to. If your paycheck is dependent upon fossil fuels you fucking vote (R) or you're a moron.

This happens everywhere some more starkly contrasted than others but people voting their wallets is by far the rule, not the exception.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Millions? How many millions cus that sounds a bit high to me even with some fancy math. (I mean I can kinda see where you're coming from if you claim that the guys who review video games are dependent on Microsoft) but otherwise millions seems like a lot more people than are collectively paid by the petroleum business.

The same goes for your 300 billion. I don't see ANY of that money. If anything that money could be spent in California on filling in potholes. Right now it's just a hole they dump my money in. Now I'm perfectly happy to let them because I'm pretty sure I'm digging one with electric bills and the such and eventually that money pit will be filled up and I'll be able to walk on it! But I get nothing tangible from the green movement.

What do you get out of EITHER of these scenariors, or can you at least point me to the location that a common person could get some of that money? Because I don't see it. And I don't think millions (at least not enough to make sense chasing in an election) do either. I mean we don't chase the Jewish vote we just remember not to be absolute twats. (Sometimes.)

I didn't say you thought Green Energy is bad. I disagree that the majority of democrats get anything out of supporting the green movement and yet the majority of us DO. And I don't think the majority of Republican voters get anything out of supporting Big Oil and yet they do. The money almost definitely influences those making money directly from it but I don't think they are a huge demographic to spend time chasing.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Millions? How many millions cus that sounds a bit high to me even with some fancy math. (I mean I can kinda see where you're coming from if you claim that the guys who review video games are dependent on Microsoft) but otherwise millions seems like a lot more people than are collectively paid by the petroleum business.

IDK, how many people currently depend on all the green energy companies that get that money.

I'm claiming the guys who review video games are going to vote for the politicians that supports their industry both legally and financially. Not the politician who wants to censor the piss out of them and sin tax them into oblivion

The closer the matter is to your paycheck the heavier it will weight in.

Wanting to be a commercial pot farmer how much do you want to bet I'm not going to vote for the most pro war on drugs candidate possible? How much you want to be the DEA and everyone dependent upon war on drugs funding will??

The same goes for your 300 billion. I don't see ANY of that money. But I get nothing tangible from the green movement.

You might not directly but a lot of other folks do, from the contractor that installs solar panels to the CEO of the company who got the funding to develop Solar Whateva inc. and every company they contract work with get's that money because (D) got it for them. That's why green folks are almost entirely D...D gets money for them.

Same reason Lockheed Martin and everyone they spend mega bucks with is almost totally R.....R gets money for them. With out R they don't get paid.

What do you get out of EITHER of these scenariors, or can you at least point me to the location that a common person could

They get a job....

I mean we don't chase the Jewish vote we just remember not to be absolute twats. (Sometimes.)

We don't chase minority votes unless pandering to the welfare crowd.

Everyone else is covered by their wallet....if a Jewish person is in green energy they vote D...if they work for Exxon they vote R. I know plenty of gay folks who are still in the closet and vote for republicans because 250k a year with full bennies. They live in Ft.Worth and work for Lockheed Martin......imagine that.

I didn't say you thought Green Energy is bad. I disagree that the majority of democrats get anything out of supporting the green movement and yet the majority of us DO.

You get 300 billion worth of votes to your team which is also aligned with your interest.

If you worked for Exxon you would NOT be voting for green energy....if you did you're a fucking idiot. Wouldn't you say?

That means R...so you support other R positions because you need all the other R's to vote for protecting Exxon (your job) which they will gladly do if you vote for protecting their job (Defense contractors, coal miners, the entire transportation/shipping industry etc.) so collectively you're all protecting each others financial interest, political party. Some industries are a little more divided than others but some are totally pwned by one side or the other.

Same shit on the other side...democrats vote democrat because it is in their economic interest to do so.

I just don't think people vote warm fuzzies and altruism over their wallet. I'm sure a few do, but not the majority. The majority follows the money.

 

[DooleyDarter]

That will be a complete waste of time, Madcow will be licking the Hilderbeasts tiddies and lobbing butterfly questions all night. Why don't the dems do a debate on Fox? Let them be subjected to the kind of questions the pubs get on the MSM channel debates. Now that would be worth watching.

The first question that should be asked Hillary, is "Madam Secretary, Why do you think Bill pulled out of Monica's mouth before she had a chance to swallow and consequently provide a historical stain on her dress?

 

[Sean Renaud]

That will be a complete waste of time, Madcow will be licking the Hilderbeasts tiddies and lobbing butterfly questions all night. Why don't the dems do a debate on Fox? Let them be subjected to the kind of questions the pubs get on the MSM channel debates. Now that would be worth watching.

The first question that should be asked Hillary, is "Madam Secretary, Why do you think Bill pulled out of Monica's mouth before she had a chance to swallow and consequently provide a historical stain on her dress?

What was any Republican asked that was remotely on par with that?

 

[DooleyDarter]

All of em, maybe not worded eggactly as that but similar in slant

 

[Sean Renaud]

Name one. Cus I can't name one that was as rough as the stuff CNN flung at Hillary. So surely you must have at least one question that stood out in your mind as simply unforgivable.

 

[midwestyankee]

Name one. Cus I can't name one that was as rough as the stuff CNN flung at Hillary. So surely you must have at least one question that stood out in your mind as simply unforgivable.

I have 50 to 1 he didn't watch any of the debates from start to finish and would have to go find an article on Breitbart just to be able to quote any of the questions that were asked.

 

[KingOrfeo]

We don't chase minority votes unless pandering to the welfare crowd.

Not even you believe that.

 

[mark_j]

It is borne out by history. We haven't had a decent Republican POTUS since Ike. Things go better under Dems -- even things Pubs claim to care the most about, like the deficit.

That is still your opinion.

Ike was before my time. So was Kennedy and I barely remember Johnson. Nixon/Ford, Carter, Regan's first term were not much on my radar as I was either too young or just didn't care to pay much attention to politics in those days.

History, if you don't look at it through a particular political color, tends not to pass judgement unless the particular POTUS really fucked up.

In your case you look at all of it with your hard liberal leanings. So of course it comes out DEM = Good, REP = Bad. How you can honestly support someone like Clinton who is so blatantly corrupt is beyond me.

However, debating it with you is pointless as you are going to slob the party line right up 'til the end..

 

[BotanyBoy]

Not even you believe that.

Then show me where a party goes after minority votes while not talking about some kind of hand out.

That is still your opinion.

No, that's pretty facty.....overall the D has been doing better than teh R.

Bush 41 was probably the least chewed up R POTUS in 50 years. He's the only one that managed not to be a total disaster.

However, debating it with you is pointless as you are going to slob the party line right up 'til the end..

http://www.cyniconomics.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/potcallingkettleblack.png

 

[KingOrfeo]

Then show me where a party goes after minority votes while not talking about some kind of hand out.

This year making nice with BLM is the thing, and that has nothing to do with handouts. Back in the '60s playing up to the Civil Rights movement was the thing, and that had nothing to do with handouts. "Hope and Change," whatever it meant, had nothing to do with handouts.

 

[Sean Renaud]

You know how I know Orf isn't a minority?

He thinks not getting shot by police isn't a hand out. That's a goddamn gold prize!

 

[NeverEndingMe]

clearly we can admit that democraps are evil

unless you are one of those obama welfare slaves