Comments

1
So now you're not even going to live-blog presidential debates? Wow, "The Stranger" sure has gone down hill the last several years. What a crappy "news" organization!
2
@1 - how about you just watch the debate and form your own opinion, genius.

If you actually care.

You realize your comment about them not following the debate is in the article where they follow the debate, right?

Please don't vote.
3
FoxBusiness.com - click on the link in the Watch Live banner at the top. No TV cable subscription needed (unlike CNBC).
4
Got you on that Rand Paul fib: the Blue States are almost uniformly doing better economically than the Red States.

In fact, if it weren't for the taxes extracted from California and New York to support the Red welfare states, the South would be Bangladesh.

You're welcome.
5
@2

Even a few years ago, the people doing the live-blog wouldn't have taken a 15 minute break to buy a box of wine. The Slog has turned to shit since Goldie and Dominic left.
6
@5 Concern Troll is Concerned.
7
Turns out Rand Paul is lying through his teeth. If you just look at Gini coefficient (a common measure of inequality, where 0 means evenly distributed income and 1 means all the income in one person's hands) by state, you can clearly see that more densely-populated states, as well as the Deep South, tend to be worse. But then if you look at trends at the county level, you'll see that not only do big cities have worse inequality (only natural due to the concentration of wealth in major population centers), rural areas in red states (particularly in the South) are unequal also. I'll take "Making Shit Up" for $200, Trebek.

As for Dr. Carson's claim, he's off base too. Politifact already looked into it when Senator Ben Cardin (D-MD) claimed that raising the minimum wage always results in an increase in jobs; it turns out there's little effect, if any, either way.
8
@3: I would rather have a colonoscopy without anesthetic than watch Fox Business Channel. I would rather pick all the gum off that wall near the market than watch the clowns debating.
9
Who cares?
10
Baby Dave makes a good point.
11
@8: So noted. You're probably due for a colonoscopy anyway; you'll save about $500 without the anesthesia.
12
If innovation and entrepreneurship are the secret sauce of success, then Carlys secret sauce was rancid when she wad CEO of HP.

I bought an HP laptop during Caryls regime.

Don't ask.
13
@8, I'm sorry, but you really did toss me a boomerang.
14
I thank god for that box of wine, so someone else can summarize the madness fir me.

I'd need heroin to watch a GOP "debate" myself, a really good grade of heroin, and a lot of it.

An overdose might be a relief.
15
7:37pm: Moderator just tossed to commercial with the words "I think it gets interesting after this." Jesus, let's hope so. Are you releasing the bees?

@Matt omg dude I will be chuckling about that for the next hour :)
16
@1
To be fair, this isn't really a presidential debate.
17
It's a well-known fact that Republicans are horrible people. Eventually they will narrow down their pool of terrible candidates to one particularly terrible candidate to run against Hillary Clinton. They will do everythIng they can, legal or otherwise to beat her, but the nice thing about Climton is that she will not be trampled on the way they did with Gore. That is because she was raised by Republicans, and can be just as awful as they are.

So why bother watching their pathetic little pissing match?
18
It was one of the better 'debates'. If you watched, you would know by now which candidate advocates a parental tax credit, which two candidates differentiated themselves over banking regulations from the rest, and interesting differences over military spending.
If all this bores you, fine. But you don't gain credibility in criticizing your adversaries when you refuse to hear what they have to say.
19
Oh I just can t take all the boldfaced lying and mean spirited obfuscation.

Maybe there might be some policy laced in the sewage, but I'd have to swallow a lot of sewage to get to the few chewy tidbits of policy from Republican candidates.

Much of which would also be lies or idiocy.

I've been force fed so much sewage from Republicans in the last 40 odd years, I'm allergic, and thank the heavens someone only needs a box of wine to wade through the sewer for me.
20
@18: there's only two electable candidates in the GOP debates, and Jeb is going to have to step out pretty soon if he doesn't get a huge infusion of cash. The other one had what pundits are calling an amazing line which meant nothing and was the opposite of fiscal conservatism.
I had to stop watching after Christie said that the cops should always be supported when they kill black men. Ok, so he didn't say "when they kill black men", but it's pretty fucking obviously what he meant.
21
@18 - Sometimes, it's a matter of having principles and sticking to them. If a group of candidates isn't willing to take any real action on climate change (with some even denying the validity of the overwhelming scientific agreement that athropogenic global climate change is real); still maintains opposition to same-sex marriage as a piece of the party platform; by and large favors an interventionist global military policy (with one notable exception); opposes universal health care, or even a robust public option or assistance to make doctor visits affordable to lower- and middle-class citizens; and can't even be bothered to admit that attending speeches by members of the base preaching genocide might be untoward, minor differences in economic policy aren't going to make a lot of difference.

But if you'd like to know more specifics as to why there's nothing a republican candidate can say to convince me to put the veto pen and potential supreme court appointments in his or her hands ... That Paul supports a reduction (or at least no increase) in military spending, as do I, is cancelled out by his belief that a private, for-profit health care system that currently ravages the household budget of anyone who has any health problems of any kind ever could possibly be made more humane through less regulation. Family and parental tax credits just skew the whole tax code yet further in favor of breeding without offering real relief to low- or middle-income families or individuals, thus doing nothing for that portion of the workforce that actually works.

I actually am curious about banking regulations, but banks aren't really the reason that the lower- and middle-classes are immobile; low wages and runaway health care costs are. And frankly, if opposition to wage reform, environmental regulation, abortion, same-sex marriage, and universal health care, and support for a belligerent foreign policy steeped in American exceptionalism, are the prices to pay to regulate the banks, I'm just not sure it's worth it.
22
@21: Great, you have your convictions but like venomlash you provide interesting commentary, instead of simply complaining and bashing Republicans which is always boring spew. I might actually hold my nose and vote for Mrs. Bill a year from now - but I remain very interested in who may be her challenger.
23
It machts nicht what minor differences those evil clowns claim, as President they'll sign pretty much whatever sewage a Republican Congress spews their way.

As Bernie himself said, Hillary on her worst day would bemonumentally better than any Republican.

As for holding your nose, I remember the Democratic voters for whom Gore wasn't pure enough.

Theyd show him that hed better be more progressive by with holding their vote orvvoting for Nader!

Thanks a heap purists for two wars and a crashed economy and a reactionary Supreme Court!

Boy howdy, that sure showed Gore.
24
@23: That was more interesting than @19. Thanks judybrowni.
25
W is not Nader voters' fault, he's the fault of the people who voted for him, or arguably of Gore for failing as a candidate.
I mean, if we're expected to vote for someone who is better than someone else, but still not someone who we support having the position of President, get mad at the people who support the candidates who want cops that shoot people to always be supported, who want to build a wall and just magically kick out 11 million people, who want to ensure that anyone with medical issues continues to be bankrupted, etc etc. My refusal to vote for a central-right candidate is stronger this year than it was in 2008/12, because we saw what hoping will get you... Guantanamo Bay is still open, we got a pretty mediocre healthcare law, the war on drugs continues apace, drone strikes on citizens without due process, and prosecution of whistleblowers.
26
@22, dumbass, your sexism is showing. The Senator and Secretary does have her OWN name.
27
@26 - You're absolutely right; and given that she's in my drop I will try to give her more respect. Good catch.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.