11/14 Democratic Debate

Watched some of it. Thought it was real,yly well moderated. They talked about issues rather than whining about the media. Looks like it's Clinton's to lose. O'Malley's ideas are interesting but he just comes across like a goober.

 

You say the other events weren't well moderated then disapprove of individuals complaining about that moderating......

collect your thoughts man

The whole debate was basically who can spend more of American's money. Debate was also incredibly boring thus why it was ended 7 minutes early

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/nov/14/democratic-debate-iowa-hillary-clinton-refuses-say/

Holy crap. After yesterday, she says this?!?!

 

Attacking the media is standard conservative protocol when all your ideas are recycled and discredited nonsense. The Democratic debate was on a different level of discourse and policy knowledge than that clown show on the Republican side. I don't blame you for being embarrassed, angry, and bitter. You should be.

 

You just said this debate was well moderated. relative to what? the republican debate? you are complaining about the same thing the republicans complained about.........

It was almost universally agreed that the Republican debates have been moderated horribly.

Again. collect your thoughts before you type.

 

It was well moderated compared to most debates I've seen over thirty years. The FBN debate was also well moderated and so was the CNN debate. You've got nothing to talk about as usual so you're trying to create something from nothing. You're very Trump like that.

 

I thought O'Malley had the best performance and made the most of the least time. He still comes off as a goober as mentioned above. It showed why governors tend to come across well in presidential races. He seems to be running a campaign based on if you don't want to vote for Hillary or a socialist then I'm your man. Lost count of how many times he said " I agree with senator sanders."

Hillary's answer about why you can trust her despite who has paid her or donated to her campaign came across as 'I'm not racist; I have a black friend' which I enjoyed.

 

She called them Jihadists on several occasions.

 

Yes - it's a sign of leadership instead of pandering to what the mob wants. Bush and Obama both took the same position - you can probably conclude that there's a strategic reason for it, given their political differences. In other words, turning "Islam" into the enemy may make you feel better, but it likely gets more Americans killed in the end. Saying there is a war against Islam (or even Radical Islam) has no strategic benefit - only negatives.

 

Sanders seems to passionately believe in what he is talking about.
Clinton seems the most polished, although her one attack against Bernie is weak (didn't vote to hold gun manufacturers liable for the criminal acts of other people, which is not the way civil liability works in America, you don't hold the car manufacturer liable if a drunk driver kills someone).
O'Malley seems like the JV candidate. I suppose it would be tough to run on a record of being the mayor of Baltimore and governor of Maryland though.
I don't want any of them to be President. I wish O'Malley would get the nomination as the easiest to defeat. I am happy that a Republican house is not going to pass most of what these people are talking about with regard to spending.

 

Well a dem president is the only thing that will stop the crazies from destroying our country. If you think Bush was bad, just see the disaster any of those other guys would have.

I am not afraid of the programs from liberals, I'm afraid of the bills from that insane House.

 

Just out curiosity - what about what she said bothers you at all? That not all Muslims are terrorists? Holy Crap, ATW has brainwashed you.

 

First of all, you'll notice I didn't bold in my original post the portion about Muslims or Muslim faith. So ***** you for purposefully misleading about what I meant.

If you really care (which I know you don't) why it bothers me, its because she won't even acknowledge they are "Radical Islamists" because they she doesn't want to "paint a broad brush".

Why is she worried about offending "Radical Islamists"?

Have we come to the point we can't even identify our enemy by WHAT THEY CALL THEMSELVES? (I made this part obvious so you won't mislead again).

Have we ever in the history of Western Civilization refused to call our enemy by what they are known as or even what they call themselves?

Did we call the Germans and Japanese in WWII "violent extremists"? No we called them what they were...Germans and Japanese.

 

Derpy derp derp.

Clinton calls out 'radical jihadist ideology'
http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/14/politics/hillary-clinton-democratic-debate-radical-jihadist/index.html

Hillary Clinton began the second Democratic debate by calling for the U.S. to bring the world together "to root out the kind of radical jihadist ideology that motivates organizations like ISIS."

Clinton described ISIS, which has claimed responsibility for the terror attacks in Paris on Friday, as "a barbaric, ruthless, violent, jihadist, terrorist group."

She did not use the term "radical Islam" during an early exchange with CBS News moderator John Dickerson, who asked if she was uncomfortable with it.

"I don't think we are at war with Islam," Clinton said. "I don't think we're at war with all Muslims. I think we're at war with jihadists."

The former secretary of state said it is "not particularly helpful" to use the term, given the U.S. government's need to manage relationships in the Middle East.

 

I recognize her (misguided) logic for why she says what she says. I simply disagree with it. I guess I should be happy she didn't blame the Paris attack on a "video we had NOTHING to do with".

Question: Does our enemy self identify as Islamic or not? Do they use the Koran as the basis for justifying their attacks or not?

Why do you think the moderator returned to the question to try and pin her down on that answer?

Minimizing or deflecting from the root cause of WHY the Jihadists are radicalized will not help to defeat it. It simply needlessly complicates any response we make.

(p.s. The "derp derp derp" part of your posts reveals a lack of your maturity in discussing serious issues. That's the nicest way I can react to it.)

 

Baby steps. It wasn't that long ago that terrorism was nothing but workplace violence to those on the left, managing to finally make it to calling them "violent extremists" is progress. Give them another decade and maybe they'll make it to calling them radical Islamists.

 

Unlike you and conservative radio talk show hosts the US government needs help from Muslim allies like Jordan, Turkey, and the gulf states to deal with the situation in the Middle East currently. So pissing them off by using terms like radical Islam isn't really helpful. Pissing off millions upon millions of American Muslims who are peaceful, productive, and law abiding citizens when they're the exact people who we rely on for intelligence on what's going on in their communities isn't helpful.

You see it's one thing to be a guy on a message board railing on and on about those crazy Moooslims but it's a different thing to govern and effectively address one of the most critical security issues of our time. You think if Donald Trump becomes President and he's going on and on about Islam that Muslim nations and Muslims in general are just going to be so excited to work with the US government? I mean is that what fantasy world you folks are living in? That you could insult hundreds of millions of people by "telling it like it is" and that's somehow going to help you resolve these issues? Really? It's just staggering really how you folks think the world works.