The CNN Democrat Debate Thread

[spec4]

At least take the time to read his position, no where does he call for gun confiscation.
Bernie Sanders on Gun Control

Unless I'm losing it I saw the guy say he wants to ban semi-automatic rifles. What do you guys think happens next?

 

[Cygnus]

Unless I'm losing it I saw the guy say he wants to ban semi-automatic rifles. What do you guys think happens next?

Nope. He is cool with semiauto BUT he would vote for an AWB.
He has never advocated confescation.
You have him confused with Hildebeast

 

[spec4]

Nope. He is cool with semiauto BUT he would vote for an AWB.
He has never advocated confescation.
You have him confused with Hildebeast

www.ontheissues.org/2016berniesandersguncontrol (He says: "some semi autos"..

 

[bwframe]

Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders “I can get beyond the noise” On Gun Control


He went on to say he voted for the “assault weapons” ban, a ban on semi-automatics, as well as instant background checks. He also favors the Gun Show “loophole” being closed through a universal background check system.


We all know that universal background checks are registration, right?
And registration leads to what?

 

[zippy23]

a little late to the party but.......That debate was nothing more than a bunch of RICH OLD WHITE PEOPLE bashing RICH OLD WHITE PEOPLE and promising to give everything away for free. They said nothing new from what we've heard since obama became president. You've got a publicly disgraced woman who is a felon, standing next to an admitted socialist. The very fact that those two people are center stage is absolutely disgusting. Meanwhile trump continues to destroy the competition, and my belief is that it is purely because he is NOT a career politician. Him and Carson are killing it. Any republican on that stage would be great to have as president. Any democrat on their stage would ensure 8 more years of obama. Either way we are trillion in debt and nothing is likely to stop the coming financial crisis.

 

[Twangbanger]

The Congressional Budget Office reviews and approves all estimates during the legislative process. I've worked with some of the members of that group back a few years ago and they are very good at what they do. Almost all of them are PhD's.

CBO is fine in its way, but the beauty in this particular issue is that we do not need to "project" anything. Our most populous U.S. state was nice enough to be our education laboratory. A certifiable utopian dream for progressives, college has been "free" (sic) in California since the 1960s. Therefore, we already have 50 years of empirical evidence of this type of plan in action, using real Americans, real colleges, and real budgets. If Bernie sticks to the notion that 26 million Americans annually can be college-educated at a cost of less than $3,000 per head, per year, and we employ the reasonable assumption that national percent-utilization will mirror California, then his claimed price tag (if true) would require colleges to operate at 1980s funding levels.

Will any of your esteemed PhD friends work for what they did in 1984? Hell no, they won't. What is the likelihood that the universities will push back, and assert that it will take at least 3, 4 times that much to "keep up with the times" and deliver world-class education? If it comes down to a shoving-match between the universities and the U.S. taxpayer, who do you think will win? Do you even care?

But inside the Liberal Echo Chamber, you don't have to think about this stuff. You're going to ignore a half-century of established, empirical history, and argue your point as if that experiment never existed. Because the fact is, you're not going to pick up a calculator on stuff like this. When Bernie said "free college," he had you at "hello."

The "adults" (ahem) in the Democratic Party want to construct a direct suction tube from the U.S. Treasury leading into the Universities of America. What could go wrong?

 

[Thor]

When gun controllers say there is a 'loophole' they want to close what they really mean is they want to put a noose around the neck of freedom.

In Australia after their long gun registration and confiscation the controllers said they needed to close the 'loophole' of private hand gun ownership...there will always be another loophole to put a noose around...

 

[rambone]

Nothing says Adult Conversation™ like debating "Do black lives matter, or do all lives matter?"

 

[rambone]

At least take the time to read his position, no where does he call for gun confiscation.
Bernie Sanders on Gun Control

Anybody who talks about banning any kind of arbitrary object is implicitly advocating confiscation, imprisonment, black markets, and less freedom. The politicians don't use those terms in their campaign speeches because that would make it clearer to voters that prohibition is tyranny.

This is like arguing that a guy who wants to ban drugs does not support confiscation. How does that even make sense?

 

[Alpo]

CBO is fine in its way, but the beauty in this particular issue is that we do not need to "project" anything. Our most populous U.S. state was nice enough to be our education laboratory. A certifiable utopian dream for progressives, college has been "free" (sic) in California since the 1960s. Therefore, we already have 50 years of empirical evidence of this type of plan in action, using real Americans, real colleges, and real budgets. If Bernie sticks to the notion that 26 million Americans annually can be college-educated at a cost of less than $3,000 per head, per year, and we employ the reasonable assumption that national percent-utilization will mirror California, then his claimed price tag (if true) would require colleges to operate at 1980s funding levels.

Will any of your esteemed PhD friends work for what they did in 1984? Hell no, they won't. What is the likelihood that the universities will push back, and assert that it will take at least 3, 4 times that much to "keep up with the times" and deliver world-class education? If it comes down to a shoving-match between the universities and the U.S. taxpayer, who do you think will win? Do you even care?

But inside the Liberal Echo Chamber, you don't have to think about this stuff. You're going to ignore a half-century of established, empirical history, and argue your point as if that experiment never existed. Because the fact is, you're not going to pick up a calculator on stuff like this. When Bernie said "free college," he had you at "hello."

The "adults" (ahem) in the Democratic Party want to construct a direct suction tube from the U.S. Treasury leading into the Universities of America. What could go wrong?

Having graduated from that western university system, I can tell you it wasn't "free" even in the 1970's. But the present tuition rate for a 4 year university out there is less than $7000 per year. It could become more efficient. Administrator to teacher ratios could be greatly reduced. Eliminating the fundraising and student aid offices alone is a help.

I'm sorry if I don't buy your chicken in every pot freedom trope. The great sucking sound I've been able to hear over the last 20 years come from a small proportion of the population and their corporations. Hint: that population doesn't live in poverty.

 

[KLB]

Having graduated from that western university system, I can tell you it wasn't "free" even in the 1970's. But the present tuition rate for a 4 year university out there is less than $7000 per year. It could become more efficient. Administrator to teacher ratios could be greatly reduced. Eliminating the fundraising and student aid offices alone is a help.

I'm sorry if I don't buy your chicken in every pot freedom trope. The great sucking sound I've been able to hear over the last 20 years come from a small proportion of the population and their corporations. Hint: that population doesn't live in poverty.

You think that increasing demand will decrease cost?

You think that the government paying for something will decrease cost?

 

[Twangbanger]

...that western university system...It could become more efficient. Administrator to teacher ratios could be greatly reduced. Eliminating the fundraising and student aid offices alone is a help....

But my point is - will it be made more efficient? Will those University people (and there are a lot of them) willingly give up the buildup to opulence they've experienced the last 30, 40 years? Obviously, they won't. So then the question becomes - will any of your favored democrat politicians _make_ them give it up? Or will the taxpayer take it in the shorts, just like taxpayers in California? Given the fact that those democrat politicians were the ones who helped build it up in the first place, the skeptical person must conclude - no, they will not make it more efficient. They will use this as an opportunity to make it even bigger and more opulent, at taxpayer expense. They will increase demand, just like Obamacare increased demand, while doing nothing to control cost.

But, the fact that you've conceded, after this long, evasive chase process, that even at current rates Bernie's plan is off by at least a factor of two - that's progress.

...I'm sorry if I don't buy your chicken in every pot freedom trope. The great sucking sound I've been able to hear over the last 20 years come from a small proportion of the population and their corporations. Hint: that population doesn't live in poverty.

What trope? I've been dissecting _one_ plan from the democrats, showing it's full of holes. For my part, I don't believe your trope that democrats are fighting for the commom man. I think they're helping destroy the common man. And by this time next year, I suspect you'll be voting to put two of the worst offenders - one of whom repealed Glass-Steagall, and signed NAFTA into law (the original "sucking sound") - back into the White House.

 

[Alpo]

I'm not all that interested in debating this topic right now. If the bill gets further in committee, then it might be something to debate. As it stands right now, it's solely a political point....one among many. This is pretty low on my radar screen.

All I remember is what they offered me to teach a course or two was laughable, so the money is going to something other than what is put in front of students.

Repealing Glass-Steagal was a huge mistake. No argument from me. I've never been fond of the Clintons and didn't vote for him. I won't vote for her, either.

 

[Twangbanger]

I'm not all that interested in debating this topic right now. If the bill gets further in committee, then it might be something to debate. As it stands right now, it's solely a political point....one among many. This is pretty low on my radar screen.

Dissecting the facts related with Democrat plans is low on your radar screen.

Got it.

 

[Alpo]

No....I'm more interested in vaginas, like the republicans.

LOL

The Air Force intends to spend 1.5 trillion on the F-35. That is more of a concern.

 

[jamil]

You think that increasing demand will decrease cost?

You think that the government paying for something will decrease cost?

Hey, it worked for healthcare. Right?

 

[ArcadiaGP]

If only the person Webb killed was a young, innocent woman he left to drown, he'd be a Democrat hero.

People are criticizing my dad, Jim Webb, for killing a man. Here’s what they’re missing.

 

[jamil]

If only the person Webb killed was a young, innocent woman he left to drown, he'd be a Democrat hero.

People are criticizing my dad, Jim Webb, for killing a man. Here’s what they’re missing.

This highlights the need to end the traditional Republican/Democratic hold on political ideologies. If we need a two party system it should peobably be individualists vs collectivists. Web does not belong with the social justice war party.

 

[KLB]

No....I'm more interested in vaginas, like the republicans.

LOL

The Air Force intends to spend 1.5 trillion on the F-35. That is more of a concern.

ALL government spending concerns me. When they brag about saving money because they are not increasing spending by as much as they were going to, something is seriously wrong.

 

[rambone]

I'm not all that interested in debating this topic right now. If the bill gets further in committee, then it might be something to debate. As it stands right now, it's solely a political point....one among many. This is pretty low on my radar screen.

Sure, we can ignore the "free college" debate for a while, but this is characteristic of Sanders' entire worldview. His political identity is based on fantasy economics. If we're not debating his embarrassing college plan, we're going to be dealing with the same debt explosion when it comes to the subject of federal healthcare, federal retirement, federal housing, federal food subsidies, and any other type of amenities he can rally support for, and so on, et cetera.