2nd Democratic Debate things you need to know.

So I've felt for a while I really should do something for the Democratic debates. Especially after I had nothing for the first one.

Problem is I cant rank candidate performance like I do the republicans though, cause thats basically only 3 paragraphs due to the smaller number of candidates. But it occurred to me, I can at least comment on the major takeaways from the debate/the moments you need to know about...in short instead of filtering the memorable moments by candidate as I do with the GOP, fliter the candidates though the memorable moments. So with that in mind, here we go


Sanders is "bad" on Paris.

So Sanders took alot of heat in the opening of the debate for his quick pivot away from Paris....which is weird because he didnt really.  Heres the prompt from the moderator "You will each have one minute for an opening statement to share your thoughts about the attacks in your Paris and lay out your visions for America. First, Senator Sanders"
Notice that? they have 60 seconds to talk about two disconnected topics in the same sentence.

Here by the way are the candidate replies:

#1: "Well, our prayers are with the people of France tonight. But that is not enough. We need to have a resolve that will bring the world together to root out the kind of radical jihadist ideology that motivates organizations like ISIS, the barbaric, ruthless, violence jihadist, terrorist group.

This election is not only about electing a president. It's also about choosing our next commander in chief. And I will be laying out in detail what I think we need to do with our friends and allies in Europe and elsewhere to do a better job of coordinating efforts against the scourge of terrorism. Our country deserves no rest because all of the other issues we wanna deal with depends on us being secure and strong."

#2: "My heart, like all of us in this room, John, and all the people across our country-- my hearts go out to the people of France in this moment of loss, parents and-- and-- and sons and daughters and family members. And-- as our hearts go out and as our prayers go out to them we must remember this, that this isn't a new face of conflict and warfare, not in the 20th century but the new face of conflict of warfare in the 21st century.

And there is no nation on the planet better able to adapt to this change than our nation. We must be able to work collaboratively with others. We must anticipate these threats before they happen. This is the new sort of challenge, the new sort of threat that does, in fact, require new thinking, fresh approaches and new leadership. As a former mayor and a former governor, there was never a single day, John, when I went to bed or woke up without realizing that this could happen in our own country. We have a lot of work to do to better prepare our nation and to better lead this world into this new century."

#3:  "Well, John, let me concur with you and with all Americans who are shocked and disgusted by what we saw in Paris yesterday. Together, leading the world this country will rid our planet of this marvelous organization called ISIS. I'm running for president because as I go around this nation I talk to a lotta people. And what I hear is people concerned that the economy we have is a rigged economy.

People are working longer hours for lower wages. And (UNINTEL) income and wealth goes to the top 1%. And then on top of that we got a corrupt campaign finance system in which millionaires and billionaires are (UNINTEL) use some of the money into super packs heavily influencing the political process. What my campaign is about is a political revolution. Millions of people standing up and saying, "Enough is enough. Our government belongs to all of us and not just a handful of billionaires."

Notice by the way, I'm not telling you which candidate said what (and they are out of order from the order the candidates spoke in the debate).....thats the point. They all followed basically the same format on Paris, give a platitude quickly and pivot to the other part of the question.

Sanders didnt do any better or worse on that issue than the other candidates.....he just went first, which means I guess he gets left holding the bag when some people decided to make a fake issue out of this

Clinton whiffs on the Minimum Wage. 

Alright so their is a movement in this country for a $15 minimum wage. Now do the democratic nominee's support it?

Sanders: "So I believe that over the next few years, not tomorrow, that over the next few years we have got to move the minimum wage to a living wage $15.00 bucks an hour. And I apologize to nobody."

O'Malley I cant quote because it was a little more drawn out with some moderator back and forth and some prodding, but summery is, he supports $15 an hour raised marylands minimum wage to 10.10 because the legislature wouldnt go higher, but thinks even that minimum wage should go up to 15.

And now Clinton: "I support a $12 national federal minimum wage. That is what the Democrats in the senate have put forward as a proposal. But I do believe that is a minimum. If you go to 12 it would be the highest historical average we have ever had now.”

So why is Clinton stopping at 12 and not 15? its not really clear...it seems to be an attempt to triangulate with those who are opposed to a minimum wage increase of any kind....but they would also appose 12. And its only going to annoy those who say 15 is the "living wage" requirement.

Which might actually include Clinton, given her later comments about wages falling behind

“Well, first of all, it isn’t the middle class; I have made it very clear that hard-working middle-class families need a raise not a tax increase. In fact, wages adjusting for inflation haven’t risen since the turn of the last century after my husband’s administration, so we have a lot of work to do.”

So we need to adjust for inflation? just not all the way or something?

But I've long thought this was one of the problems with Clinton....she cant give a noncalculated answer, but her calculations usually land her in a place where no one is actually happy with it.

At the moment her position on minimum wage seems to be it should go up....just not enough to be a living wage, a clunky position that seems assured to get her attacked from both sides on the issue.

Clinton chokes on Radical Islam

Speaking of Clinton's habit of assuming everything it politicized and needs a middle ground anwser that pisses everyone off, we get to her statement about Radical Islam...or something.

Heres the entire exchange:

"JOHN DICKERSON[moderator]: Secretary Clinton, you mentioned radical jihadists.

HILLARY CLINTON: Yes.

JOHN DICKERSON: Marco Rubio, also running for president, said that this attack showed-- in-- the attack in Paris showed that we are at war with radical Islam. Do you agree with that characterization, radical Islam?

HILLARY CLINTON: I don't think we're at war with Islam. I don't think we at war with all Muslims. I think we're at war with jihadists who have--

JOHN DICKERSON: Just to interrupt, he-- he didn't say all Muslims. He just said radical Islam. Is that a phrase you don't--

HILLARY CLINTON: I-- I think that you can-- you can talk about Islamists who-- clearly are also jihadists. But I think it's-- it-- it's not particularly helpful to make the case that-- Senator Sanders was just making that I agree with that we've gotta reach out to Muslim countries. We've gotta have them be part of our coalition.

If they hear people running for-- president who basically shortcut it to say we are somehow against Islam-- that was one of the real contributions-- despite all the other problems that George W. Bush made after 9/11 when he basically said after going to a mosque in Washington, "We are not at war with Islam or Muslims. We are at war with violent extremism. We are at war with people who use their religion for purposes of power and oppression." And yes, we are at war with those people that I don't want us to be painting with too brand a brush.

(OVERTALK)"

So that was basically a several minute detour on what the meaning of the word "is" is....and for no good damn reason. This by the way is another reoccurring Clintonism, she did the same thing a few months ago when asked about gay marriage....she agreed with the statement the reporter asked her....but only after spending several minutes attacking the reporters wording (that she later accepted) for no clear reason

As near as I can tell, Clinton actually agrees with Rubio...except that, for whatever reason she cant just come out and say it....at least not until the question is reworded to her particular liking (using jihadist in place of Islam). And clearly its not the fact hes a Republican that is causing the issue here, as she openly admits to agreeing with Bush (who also agrees with Rubio)

And all of this seems to be because she thinks its a trap, presumably to make her agree with Rubio.....which she does. So how exactly would that be a trap in the first place?

And her objection such as it is doesnt make sense. Shes apparently worried that calling it Radical Islam doesnt draw enough distinction between those who follow Islam, and those who follow a Radical interpretation of Islam, despite the phrasing being used being pretty much the exact definition of the distinction she wants to make.

All in all just a very awkward, confusing moment that makes Clinton look more paranoid than presidential.

Clinton goes 9/11.

Speaking of awkward Clinton moments she was pressed on her wallstreet financing by Bernie Sanders...and well things just got weird. Again the exchange in full:

BERNIE SANDERS: I have never heard a candidate, never, who's received huge amounts of money from oil, from coal, from Wall Street, from the military industrial complex, not one candidate, go, "OH, these-- these campaign contributions will not influence me. I'm gonna be independent." Now, why do they make millions of dollars of campaign contributions? They expect to get something. Everybody knows that. Once again, I am running a campaign differently than any other candidate. We are relying on small campaign donors, $750,000 and $30 apiece. That's who I'm indebted to.

HILLARY CLINTON: Well, Scott, Scott, wait a minute, wait a minute.

(OVERTALK)

JOHN DICKERSON: Secretary Clinton gets to respond.

HILLARY CLINTON:--answer to impugn my integrity, let's be frank here.

BERNIE SANDERS: No, I don't.

HILLARY CLINTON: Oh, wait a minute, senator. (LAUGH) You know, not only do I have hundreds of thousands of donors, most of them small, I am very proud that for the first time a majority of my donors are women, 60 percent. (APPLAUSE) So I-- I represented New York. And I represented New York on 9/11 when we were attacked.

Where were we attacked? We were attacked in downtown Manhattan where Wall Street is. I did spend a whole lot of time and effort helping them rebuild. That was good for New York. It was good for the economy. And it was a way to rebuke the terrorists who had attacked our country. (APPLAUSE)

So Sanders brings up a concern that people who are supported by Wallstreet wont go against Wallstreet....this is a popular concern on both the right and the left actually. And Clinton's reply is what basically? 9/11 gives her a free pass because 9/11?

No seriously, I cant see any logic at all in clintons reply....well except that she seems to think a non sequitur play on emotions for no reason will distract people from logic.

And actually the oddest part of her whole response is that, if we attempt to apply logic to  ITS A FUCKING HORRIBLE ANSWER.

Ok so, Sanders claim is, Clinton cant be trusted to regulate Wallstreet because they donated to her.

And the little bit of logic we can squeeze out of clintons asinine statement is that they give her money because she helped to rebuild after 9/11.....you know with the form and power they had to wreck the world economy 7 years later......because of how she rebuilt them.

Basically, it seems like Clinton just accidentally [I assume] took credit for all the things that lead to the financial collapse in the first place......definitely proving sanders prove valid.  

Bernie Sanders with the line of the night:

First the set up, from one of the other moderators:

"Well, let's get specific, how high would you [raise taxes]? You said before you'd go above 50%. How high?"

Normally admitting to wanting to raise taxes is the kiss of death in american politics. But it seems American Politics has yet to feel the Bern, as sanders scored a total knockout with his answer:

"BERNIE SANDERS: We haven't come up with an exact number yet. But it will not be as high as the number under Dwight D. Eisenhower which was 90%. But it will be-- (LAUGHTER AND CROSSTALK) I'm not a socialist compared to Eisenhower.

Ok, thats going to leave a mark. Especially given how Republicans keep wanting to go back to the good old days....when Ike was in office.  Plus it directly hits the GOP on their "we always cut taxes" bullshit and shows how far the GOP was moved to the right....and also steals the "fisical responsibility" out from under the GOP.....given that, Ike was the last republican to balance the budget.....want to guess how he did it? :D

Now at first I was concerned that Sanders had just signed his own death warrant by opening himself up to claims of jacking up taxes as high as 90%.....but based on conservative reaction I was wrong.

See sanders said this earlyish in the debate, and yet by the end of the debate all the conservative twitter feeds I was watching were still desperately trying to prove this assertion untrue and/or just furious he'd brought it up.

Now in some respects Sanders may have landed this punch a little too well.....as no one seemed ot notice when he did the same thing, with a different republican, later in the night

"Here is the major issue when we talk about Wall Street, it ain't complicated. You got six financial institutions today that have assets of 56 per-- equivalent to 50-- six percent of the GDP in America. They issue two thirds of the credit cards and one third of the mortgages. If Teddy Roosevelt, the good republican, were alive today you know what he'd say? "Break them up. Reestablish (APPLAUSE) (UNINTEL) like Teddy Roosevelt (UNINTEL) that is leadership. So I am the only candidate up here that doesn't have a super PAC. I'm not asking Wall Street or the billionaires for money. I will break up these banks, support community banks and credit unions-- credit unions. That's the future of banking in America."
So yea....vote for the Socialist....he's only as radical as the GOP was in the first 2/3rd of the 20th century.

And Sanders is now making it very difficult for the modern GOP to reach back in time and claim to be influenced by the policies of a previous Republican President should he reach the general....hes already campaigning on their economic polices.

But hey at least as far as two term presidents go, the GOP still has the guy who resigned, the unpopular possible war criminal who lied us into war and crashed the economy and St. Reagan right?

Actually not so much, as O'Mallay picked up the assist on Reagan after Sanders' comments on Eisenhower.

"I mean, (UNINTEL) under Ronald Reagan's first term the highest marginal rate was 70%. And in talking to a lot of our neighbors who are in that super wealthy millionaire and billionaire category great numbers of them love their country enough to do more again in order to create more opportunity for America's middle class."

You know, I know the GOP is shitting their collective pants over the possibility of facing Hillary in the General.....but maybe shes not the one they should be worried about, as it seems its the other 2 candidates who came ready to fight "dirty". Just saying.


Anywho, thats it, thats all 5 of the major debate moments at the Democratic Debate yesterday. But I'm not quite done yet, I have a "bonus" pointless but funny moment at the debate.

So, at the Republican Debate last week, any members of the media who wanted to use Wifi (which was all of them) were required to use the WiFi provided by the RNC....and the RNC's password.

it's funny get it? the "liberal media" had to type Stop Hillary before they could log on to the internet...LOL.

Well it turns out the DNC figured they could one up the RNC as far as trying to make political messages out of WiFi log in's 

Damn. lets see in just one piece of paper the Dem's did manage to one up the GOP, as it seems in comparison the GOP's only goal is to stop Hillary, where as the Dems would like to create jobs.

But its more the Dem's password....or lack of one that really gets the prize here. Talk about an easy way to make the other party look elitist and exclusionary, and rub their faces in in.

Personally, I hope to see this Wifi war continue, as while its totally pointless irrelevant and stupid, its also pretty funny.

So yea, balls in your court RNC....time to top that...if you can.