Well I hope those black eyes will mean Ted will be less of a piece of **** from doing nothing productive while finding ways to shut down congress.
He was wrong though. The p***y grabbing principle is what America wanted, not conservative principles.
CNN fact-check from Sanders-Cruz ACA debate: http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/08/politics/health-care-debate-fact-check/ PolitiFact fact-check: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...hecking-ted-cruz-bernie-sanders-health-care-/
I enjoyed the debate last night and I hope CNN does more of these. Heck, I'd even get behind the idea of a Sanders/Cruz debate every month. So much of our horrible political discourse is driven by the punditry-filled vacuum, let's just have actual lawmakers debate in front of citizens and hear it straight from the horse's mouth.
In the past, there even used to be interesting shows on public TV/radio and even the networks, pairing two equally eloquent commentators to debate issues of importance. And while I can't say I agreed with much of the typical conservative commentators said, I learned a lot and respected the way people like Buckley and Will would present their points. Unfortunately, the tastes of the public changed to hear echo chambers, and the thoughtful debate turned into the same type arguments often seen on this forum. btw, seemed SNL both satirized and possibly helped kill off these types of shows when Dan Ankroyd and Jane Curtin uttered the first "Jane, you ignorent b****".
start at 8:46. I don't think either answered the questions from the audience. Cruz i understand why because he cant speak for all Republicans and can only speak for himself so he cant make promises. Bernie on the other hand, is defending a plan in place so he should of been able to .
LOL... not partisan at all, but defending one participant from not answering while criticizing the other?
of course. its hard to answer a question like 'what will happen in this scenario' when a plan hasn't been decided on yet. It should be easy for Bernie because the plan is in place.
How long has Cruz been in the Senate? Over all that time, I am sure he has spoken out vigorously in criticism of ACA. He should be able to talk to the "many plans" that the "many republicans" have been developing to replace ACA. Perhaps providing more detail on the one or two he favors. Though I suspect, there is no favorable plan from the republicans that the viewers of the debate (and those that would read about it afterwards) would also favor. Hence, his reticence to speak to the American public. And your interest in defending that reticence.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: What happens in this scenario? CRUZ: let me tell about 10 different things that could happen depending on which plan we pick. One of them will happen. Also I'll do this in the 60 seconds I have to respond. .................. CRUZ spoke often about what he would like to happen, he cant speak to what will happen. Sanders can.
Listened to a few clips (will listen to entirety tonight). But in clips I heard, Cruz vaguely referred to every republican plan addresses preexisting conditions, but never gives an example of any way they address preexisting conditions. He vaguely says they will prevent people from losing their insurance due to a preexisting conditions, but does not say how they would be guaranteed. And he doesn't say how people with preexisting conditions will get insurance when they don't have insurance... what protects those people? And more broadly, when Cruz says he wants to put the decision in the hands of the people... if insurance companies can choose who they insure, he is really taking that power from the government, and puts it in the hands of insurance companies.
