Democrat Debate- Impressions and Tells

[LoneLaugher]

Jim,

Where was Barack Obama born?

Lol, Hawaii.

Jeebus! lol

Was that supposed to be some kind of litmus test?

How about an assessment of the debate, LL? That's sort of the topic here

Yes. It is a litmus test. I honestly wasn't sure how he'd answer.

The man has offered a conspiracy theory.....asking if I think the timing of recessions is a coincidence or proof that the Democratic Party totally controls the reins of the economy and have purposefully tanked the economy every time a republican gets into the White House. Doesn't that sound crazy to you?

When I read something like that.......I need to find out how far gone the person I am talking with has fallen. Thus the birther question.

I'm pleased to see that Jim finds the idea that Obama wasn't born in Hawaii to be ridiculous.

My assessment of the debate? I've given it many times.

The topic here is Jims theory. I respond as follows.

There is NO WAY that the conspiracy that Jim is suggesting is in any way possible. He hasn't proved it and I've seen nothing here that even gives me pause. It doesn't make sense. If the Dems control the economy and can create recessions at will as he suggests....how is it that they couldn't do the opposite while Carter was POTUS and get him reelected?

 

[LoneLaugher]

And.....the proper phrase for the OP is "Democratic Debate". With an "ic" at the end. Someone who wants to have a serious discussion might take note.

 

[JimBowie1958]

There is NO WAY that the conspiracy that Jim is suggesting is in any way possible. He hasn't proved it and I've seen nothing here that even gives me pause. It doesn't make sense. If the Dems control the economy and can create recessions at will as he suggests....how is it that they couldn't do the opposite while Carter was POTUS and get him reelected?

You are not exactly understanding what I said, not at all, which isn't surprising since you dismiss it out of hand. this is a problem with closed mindedness.

I am saying that the people who run the Federal Reserve have a strong preference to see Democratic Presidents, for various reasons, and so they dump their bubbles and other crap during Republican Presidencies and the string of recessions/depressions since the inception of the Federal Reserve demonstrates this.

I never said that the Democratic Party control the Federal Reserve. A closer description would be that the Federal Reserve controls the Democratic Party, but that too is not entirely true. The Wall Street banksters make a whole lot more hay during Democratic Presidencies and this is why so many Democrat treasury secretaries have been alumni from Wall Street and the Federal Reserve.

Really, you shouldn't dismiss things before you have an actual understanding of what they are about and state.

But I know that wont ever stop you, lol.

 

[LoneLaugher]

There is NO WAY that the conspiracy that Jim is suggesting is in any way possible. He hasn't proved it and I've seen nothing here that even gives me pause. It doesn't make sense. If the Dems control the economy and can create recessions at will as he suggests....how is it that they couldn't do the opposite while Carter was POTUS and get him reelected?

You are not exactly understanding what I said, not at all, which isn't surprising since you dismiss it out of hand. this is a problem with closed mindedness.

I am saying that the people who run the Federal Reserve have a strong preference to see Democratic Presidents, for various reasons, and so they dump their bubbles and other crap during Republican Presidencies and the string of recessions/depressions since the inception of the Federal Reserve demonstrates this.

I never said that the Democratic Party control the Federal Reserve. A closer description would be that the Federal Reserve controls the Democratic Party, but that too is not entirely true. The Wall Street banksters make a whole lot more hay during Democratic Presidencies and this is why so many Democrat treasury secretaries have been alumni from Wall Street and the Federal Reserve.

Really, you shouldn't dismiss things before you have an actual understanding of what they are about and state.

But I know that wont ever stop you, lol.

PROVE IT!!!!!!!!

Show me some evidence. The dates of recessions is not evidence. I need memos or recordings of these acts of collusion. Who has done what? Name names.

What "various reasons"?????

Let's go. Make your case.

 

[JimBowie1958]

There is NO WAY that the conspiracy that Jim is suggesting is in any way possible. He hasn't proved it and I've seen nothing here that even gives me pause. It doesn't make sense. If the Dems control the economy and can create recessions at will as he suggests....how is it that they couldn't do the opposite while Carter was POTUS and get him reelected?

You are not exactly understanding what I said, not at all, which isn't surprising since you dismiss it out of hand. this is a problem with closed mindedness.

I am saying that the people who run the Federal Reserve have a strong preference to see Democratic Presidents, for various reasons, and so they dump their bubbles and other crap during Republican Presidencies and the string of recessions/depressions since the inception of the Federal Reserve demonstrates this.

I never said that the Democratic Party control the Federal Reserve. A closer description would be that the Federal Reserve controls the Democratic Party, but that too is not entirely true. The Wall Street banksters make a whole lot more hay during Democratic Presidencies and this is why so many Democrat treasury secretaries have been alumni from Wall Street and the Federal Reserve.

Really, you shouldn't dismiss things before you have an actual understanding of what they are about and state.

But I know that wont ever stop you, lol.

PROVE IT!!!!!!!!

Show me some evidence. The dates of recessions is not evidence. I need memos or recordings of these acts of collusion. Who has done what? Name names.

What "various reasons"?????

Let's go. Make your case.

Lol, I think most reasonable people would accept the dates as obvious evidence all on its own.

This isn't a court, and I don't have to have confessions from the bankster rats that run the financial sector or the nations economy. I know them by their rat smell, and that is proof enough.

 

[LoneLaugher]

There is NO WAY that the conspiracy that Jim is suggesting is in any way possible. He hasn't proved it and I've seen nothing here that even gives me pause. It doesn't make sense. If the Dems control the economy and can create recessions at will as he suggests....how is it that they couldn't do the opposite while Carter was POTUS and get him reelected?

You are not exactly understanding what I said, not at all, which isn't surprising since you dismiss it out of hand. this is a problem with closed mindedness.

I am saying that the people who run the Federal Reserve have a strong preference to see Democratic Presidents, for various reasons, and so they dump their bubbles and other crap during Republican Presidencies and the string of recessions/depressions since the inception of the Federal Reserve demonstrates this.

I never said that the Democratic Party control the Federal Reserve. A closer description would be that the Federal Reserve controls the Democratic Party, but that too is not entirely true. The Wall Street banksters make a whole lot more hay during Democratic Presidencies and this is why so many Democrat treasury secretaries have been alumni from Wall Street and the Federal Reserve.

Really, you shouldn't dismiss things before you have an actual understanding of what they are about and state.

But I know that wont ever stop you, lol.

PROVE IT!!!!!!!!

Show me some evidence. The dates of recessions is not evidence. I need memos or recordings of these acts of collusion. Who has done what? Name names.

What "various reasons"?????

Let's go. Make your case.

Lol, I think most reasonable people would accept the dates as obvious evidence all on its own.

This isn't a court, and I don't have to have confessions from the bankster rats that run the financial sector or the nations economy. I know them by their rat smell, and that is proof enough.

No. The dates are in no way evidence of anything that you have suggested. most reasonable people would ask for something a bit more concrete. Do you have it?

You are now running from this discussion.

 

[JimBowie1958]

No. The dates are in no way evidence of anything that you have suggested. most reasonable people would ask for something a bit more concrete. Do you have it?

Seven of the last seven economic downturns of note since the inception of the Federal Reserve have been during Republican Presidencies and almost everyone of them due to bubbles bursting due to Fed policies to no longer maintain those bubbles.

Most reasonable people would say that that is itself proof, but I guess yo would be exempted.

If you cant see what is plain as day and right in your face, well, no wonder you are an atheist, lol.

 

[LoneLaugher]

No. The dates are in no way evidence of anything that you have suggested. most reasonable people would ask for something a bit more concrete. Do you have it?

Seven of the last seven economic downturns of note since the inception of the Federal Reserve have been during Republican Presidencies and almost everyone of them due to bubbles bursting due to Fed policies to no longer maintain those bubbles.

Most reasonable people would say that that is itself proof, but I guess yo would be exempted.

If you cant see what is plain as day and right in your face, well, no wonder you are an atheist, lol.

Prove this......."almost every one (sic) of them due to bubbles bursting due to Fed policies to no longer maintain those bubbles".

If you can do that.....then explain the "almost". Why would there be any exceptions?

Finally.....give me some names. What people are pulling these strings at the Fed? Why are they in cahoots with the Dems? What is their gain from doing this?

I'm close to being done with this now boring discussion. Unless you can spice it up with some evidence.......something more than your weird coincidence theory.....I'm going to move on. I'm tired of asking you to support your claim.

And....the athiest comment------what are you trying to say? That my refusal to believe something I don't see makes me unreasonable?

It's upside down backward land.

 

[Mertex]

Overnight debate numbers have the Dems at about half the GOP viewership, and that isn't good for the Dems no matter how you spin it.


Overnight ratings point to Democratic debate record

The total viewer number for Tuesday's matchup will be released on Wednesday afternoon. It will be much lower than both recent Republican debates, but the early data suggests there was still a surprising surge of interest in Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Martin O'Malley, Lincoln Chafee and Jim Webb's first time together on stage.

Heading into Tuesday night, there was unanimous agreement that the total audience would be lower than the 25 million who tuned in for Fox's Republican debate on August 6. That debate -- fueled by Donald Trump -- shattered all previous primary debate records.

Proof the DNC base is low information, but definitely voters. Republicans and conservative read books and keep informed about issues. On the DNC side, it's only the radical lesbian feminists who do that.

You've been reading to many comic books. The reason more people tuned in to the Republican debate with Trump is because people like the circus and the clowns are hilarious to watch.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Prove this......."almost every one (sic) of them due to bubbles bursting due to Fed policies to no longer maintain those bubbles".

If you can do that.....then explain the "almost". Why would there be any exceptions?

Finally.....give me some names. What people are pulling these strings at the Fed? Why are they in cahoots with the Dems? What is their gain from doing this?

I'm close to being done with this now boring discussion.

I am done with it. I am going to give details to how the Federal Reserve popped the housing bubble by raising interest rates beginning in 2006 and I am done discussing this with you as you are simply too stubborn to admit the plausibility of what I am telling you and just dig this shit up yourself. I am spoon feeding the links for this though, this last time for you, and I doubt that you will even bother to read any of it.

Unless you can spice it up with some evidence.......something more than your weird coincidence theory.....I'm going to move on. I'm tired of asking you to support your claim.

I have supported my claim dude. You refuse to look at it.

And....the atheist comment------what are you trying to say? That my refusal to believe something I don't see makes me unreasonable?

It's upside down backward land.

No it is 'typical secularist atheist Democrat only willing to see what he wants to land.

First an asset bubble is formed when speculators drive the price of an asset up artificially hopping to 'flip' or quickly resell an item they have bought. Normally the markets self adjust based on price, demand and supply, but when the Federal Reserve supplies easy and cheap credit and coerces banks to lower their criteria for judging who has good credit, then the cheap credit allows for prices to go way up very fast. In this case the banks thought they also had a patsy to dump the bad mortgages on anyway and escape any responsibility be reselling the mortgage debt to Fanny Mae and Freddy Mack. This continued for some time until the Fed decided to end it by raising the interest rates again. that pops the bubble by cutting the cheap credit and the ability of the flippers to resell the asset and the price crashes.

Here are some links for the curious to read to see some details on the matter.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...6MEbtJIaY0JlUS_XsHCZNg&bvm=bv.105039540,d.cWw

The Great American Bubble Machine | Rolling Stone

The Housing Market Crash of 2007 and What Caused the Crash | Stock Picks System

Economist's View: Bernanke: Monetary Policy and the Housing Bubble

Fed caused oil crash, stocks next: Peter Schiff

Federal Reserve Power

The Mega Banks: Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, et. al. Control Europe's Political Landscape

 

[Mertex]

I think either Trump, Carson, or Firorina will take the nomination, and certainly not the designated heir Jebba the Bush.

I will be very surprised if that happens. I personally think Fiorina, Carson and Trump will flame out, in that order, too....and Jeb's money will keep him going until he emerges as the top contender, just like Romney did, and the Republicans will lose, again.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I think either Trump, Carson, or Firorina will take the nomination, and certainly not the designated heir Jebba the Bush.

I will be very surprised if that happens. I personally think Fiorina, Carson and Trump will flame out, in that order, too....and Jeb's money will keep him going until he emerges as the top contender, just like Romney did, and the Republicans will lose, again.

If Jebba the Bush, Rubio or Kasich gets the nomination the party will lose, no doubt.

But I think the rank and file GOP is so sick of the party establishment that there will be a violent revolt at the convention if the establishment pulls some of the bullshit that they did in 2012 like driving delegates around in a bus for hours keeping them from the convention, having some delegates forcibly removed and simply ignoring points of order by anti-Romney elements in various committee and rules meetings.

The rank and file are serious about Jeb NOT being the nominee and if the Establishment still pulls it off, I seriously think the GOP faces a major split like the Conservative Party had in the 80's.

 

[Mertex]

At least the Republicans had a real debate......not this infomercial for Hillary's red-carpet walk to the WhiteHouse.

What debate did the Republicans have? Whether or not Trump was right that no one would vote for Fiborina because of her face? Get ready for another beating....your party has disgraced itself over and over and the American people are fed up with it.

 

[Mertex]

I think either Trump, Carson, or Firorina will take the nomination, and certainly not the designated heir Jebba the Bush.

I will be very surprised if that happens. I personally think Fiorina, Carson and Trump will flame out, in that order, too....and Jeb's money will keep him going until he emerges as the top contender, just like Romney did, and the Republicans will lose, again.

If Jebba the Bush, Rubio or Kasich gets the nomination the party will lose, no doubt.

But I think the rank and file GOP is so sick of the party establishment that there will be a violent revolt at the convention if the establishment pulls some of the bullshit that they did in 2012 like driving delegates around in a bus for hours keeping them from the convention, having some delegates forcibly removed and simply ignoring points of order by anti-Romney elements in various committee and rules meetings.

The rank and file are serious about Jeb NOT being the nominee and if the Establishment still pulls it off, I seriously think the GOP faces a major split like the Conservative Party had in the 80's.

You may be spot on that one....but I'm still thinking the establishment is going to try to prop up Jeb.

 

[Mertex]

webb did a horrible job.

Not according to the polls. He finished with 24% who thought he 'won' after Sanders at 54%

.

Webb was stiff and grumpy. But the real reasons the Wasserman-Shultz crowd didn't like him; he made the point about regular people not having armed security like Hillary, and therefore need to defend themselves; made the point that some sectors of the white population have cultural issues that perpetuate poverty and therefore affirmative action shouldn't be based on race... and then he muddled that by supporting affirmative action for blacks due to their unique American history; and the post-debate freak out was a reaction to Webb talking about snuffing a dude in Nam, as if he should have negotiated with the guy throwing grenades at him.

I watched the debate with a self-proclaimed socialist. She said she didn't like Webb because he'd want to bomb everyone we have a problem with. In reality, he's much more firmly anti-war than Clinton.

the wasserman-shultz crowd?



you people find the oddest ways of labeling people.

webb did a terrible stiff whiny unlikeable job.

that is just how it is.

Webb sounded too Republican, that is the reason many conservatives are claiming that he did a good job at the debate....truth is, he and Chafee won't be around too much longer and most Democrats won't even miss them.

 

[Mertex]

She sounded very convincing when she was lying.

Pretty pathetic that you still trust her.

When you are biased, you are going to see everything in a negative way........probably the same way we see Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz, etc., but you've got to admit, Hillary is way more educated, intelligent and is a hell of a lot better speaker than T-Chump. T-Chump is about the same caliber as Sarah Palin, why he sounds so appealing to so many uninformed conservatives, and I hope he becomes the Republican candidate, it will be funny to see him get all flustered and start slinging mud much like his followers do on this Forum.

 

[Mertex]

You believe everything Democrats say and nothing Republicans say.....so you're not in any position to judge.

Let's see.......the Republican party forms a committee to supposedly get to the bottom of the Benghazi incident and claims that Hillary is not trustworthy.....and then we find out from the same committee members, who happen to be Republican, that the committee was not about Benghazi as much as it was to try and bring Hillary down....I think it's pretty clear who the ones that aren't trustworthy here are.

And how much tax-payer money have the "party that wants to cut spending" spent on this psuedo Benghazi committee investigation, that has yielding "NADA"?

 

[mudwhistle]

She sounded very convincing when she was lying.

Pretty pathetic that you still trust her.

When you are biased, you are going to see everything in a negative way........probably the same way we see Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz, etc., but you've got to admit, Hillary is way more educated, intelligent and is a hell of a lot better speaker than T-Chump. T-Chump is about the same caliber as Sarah Palin, why he sounds so appealing to so many uninformed conservatives, and I hope he becomes the Republican candidate, it will be funny to see him get all flustered and start slinging mud much like his followers do on this Forum.

The problem is, the facts are already coming out......so Hillary was talking like she was talking to a child that didn't know what's going on. If you keep informed it's pretty tough for Hillary to get away with the BS she keeps repeating. All of the laws she broke, according to her, was a bad choice, but just evil Republicans trying to destroy her for purely political purposes, and she'll never do it again.....PROMISE.

 

[Mertex]

On the question of what differentiates the candidates from Obama, Clinton simply referred to her gender. Everything about her campaign (even her --> symbol) is staked to the successes or failures of Obama as perceived November 2016

It is amazing to me, but Clintonista really seems to think she will win because she has a vagina.

Quit claiming that you can get into our minds. We are not anything like the Republican women who were drooling over Sarah Palin. I'm voting for Hillary because she has the experience, she is strong, a good speaker, can remember details and events and explain herself clearly, and most of all because she doesn't take any shit from the Republican party.

Obama will be considered one of the best Presidents, regardless of what the biased Republican/conservatives claim, but he tried too hard to involve the recalcitrant Republicans in Congress who weren't interested in making the country better, but were just interested in getting their way. Which, by the way, went against the majority of Americans. So quit flattering yourself and claiming that we are voting for Clinton because she has a vagina....unless you are saying that because you yourself are only voting for Trump because he has a penis, and thinks that everyone else operates like you.

 

[Mertex]

The man has offered a conspiracy theory.....asking if I think the timing of recessions is a coincidence or proof that the Democratic Party totally controls the reins of the economy and have purposefully tanked the economy every time a republican gets into the White House. Doesn't that sound crazy to you?

Typical conservative logic, if you ask me. Nothing is ever their fault...they soothe their guilt by claiming that they were taken advantage of or victimized.