Social Question

stanleybmanly's avatar

Have any minds been changed here as a result of last night's debate.

Asked by stanleybmanly (22380points) October 14th, 2015

we all know the answer to what amounts to a rhetorical question. But instead of answering that question, how about contrasting last night’s event with the Republican debates.

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

47 Answers

CWOTUS's avatar

No, I am more convinced than ever that the entire debate system on both sides is a total waste of time. Maybe if it becomes more popular, though, the various advertisers will develop better ads, sort of like the Super Bowl is a great reason to watch television even for people who care nothing for football.

_Seek_'s avatar

Here? Likely not.

In general? Well, Bernie leads in new Twitter followers, with 34K new followers since the debate began last night.

zenvelo's avatar

My preference for a Democratic nominee hasn’t changed since last night, my 1,2,3 choices are the same. But it was nice to listen to the grown ups talk about serious issues. It was like switching to PBS after months of the Kardashians.

DoNotKnow's avatar

I really hope nobody changed their mind because of that ridiculous event. That would be concerning. Even though I think there is only one reasonable Democratic candidate (Sanders), it would be absurd for someone to watch him make a couple of statements and decide that he’s their choice. Hopefully, people who watched the “debate” hit the internet for some research on the candidates following the event for some real research. Don’t vote for someone because you like their voice or they have charisma or they presented as “presidential”. My dog is all of those things, and she isn’t worthy of your vote. Vote on the issues….and records. The internet is your friend.

As for your question in the details – I didn’t watch the Republican debates – because I don’t hate myself.

_Seek_'s avatar

I watched friends live-tweet the Republican debate drinking game. They were all shithammered by the end of the first hour.

talljasperman's avatar

Yes. I decided to cancel my cable until the Election is over In the states.

Judi's avatar

I’m still undecided, but like @zenvelo said, it sure was a contrast from the circus of the Republican Debates.
I’m sure we are all disappointed that no one asked what they would want their Secret Service names would be. ~

kritiper's avatar

Like and respect Bernie better than before. Will still vote Democrat in the election!

jerv's avatar

The debates last night changed my thoughts on one issue.

Until last night, I was convinced that Bernie didn’t give enough of a shit about his hair to even own a comb. Apparently I was mistaken.

Cruiser's avatar

Nope. It is abundantly clear the Dems still will saying anything and give away everything to get elected.

jerv's avatar

@Cruiser Same with Republicans. Neither party has a monopoly on that. It’s as fundamental a part of politics as knowing the alphabet is a fundamental part of literacy.

This election is interesting in that we have two candidates (Trump and Sanders) who plainly just don’t give a fuck; they’ll speak their minds without clearing it with their PR manager first. And I think the jury is still out on whether Carson has any fucks to give either. It’s a nice change from having nothing but polished puppets like Hillary or Jeb.

Dutchess_III's avatar

I was more impressed with Hilary than I expected to be, and less impressed with Bernie than I expected to be.

Cruiser's avatar

@jerv Your comment echoing mine only holds water because Trump is in the race…the only difference is he is throwing in a 2,000 mile border wall that he is certain he will get Mexico to pay for it. Let’s see Bernie, Hill or Dr. Smith pull that off!~

The only thing missing in last night’s debate was the Shiners zipping around on the stage in their Go-Karts.

Cruiser's avatar

Plus @ Jerv how can you support Hill when she is out today touting how “If we invest in solar, wind and other energies we can take on this Global Warming issue!” Can she be any more late to the early show? We have spent the last 15 years and more trying in vain to create viable alternative energy sources and we have failed on an epic level when you measure the results against our current energy sources. False choices that will only cause our country to sink further into the ground if lemmings continue to follow these has been ideals off the cliff.

jerv's avatar

@Cruiser Funny. Carson, Jindall, Huckabee, Christie, Cruz, Santorum and the others are either doing the same thing or not getting enough camera time to make it worth the effort.

Also, you seem to think that I have more respect for and trust in Hillary than I actually do. I’ve seen prosthetic limbs that seemed less artificial than her.

Cruiser's avatar

@jerv That is picking the low hanging fruit like Trump and Sanders. Now is not the time but soon it will be time to take down the circus tents and get real.

DrasticDreamer's avatar

My opinions haven’t changed at all. That said, I was glad that the debate wasn’t as much of a spectacle as the Republican debates have been. However, they still weren’t nearly good enough. I also did enjoy seeing Bernie not give a shit about being passionate – I appreciated that much more than the typical “polished” politicians who don’t actually give two shits about anything.

My mind was made up about voting for Bernie a long time ago, because I already researched the hell out of him. Next “debate”, though, I would really like to see him delve deeper and tell us his plans for implementing some of his ideas. They are really difficult to watch in general, though, because they’re all stupid.

jerv's avatar

@Cruiser That will still leave Sanders though…. or have you bought into the hype of the mainstream media? Sanders is as real as he has ever been, and that’s been enough to get him into a mayorship and a stint in the House, so he’s obviously at least as electable as anyone else in the race from either party.

Personally, I’m going by the poll numbers rather than the headlines, and it seems that, as it stands right now, Sanders is a strong enough contender that I wouldn’t call it yet. If the primaries were next week maybe, but we have at least three whole months (depending on where you live). If Sanders were where he is in the polls due to entertainment value the way Trump is then I could see him fading away once the race got serious.

Cruiser's avatar

@jerv “Personally, I’m going by the poll numbers” If you are going by the poll numbers than you are invested in the hype as polls are nothing but hype and only the gullible buy into poll BS. I am seeing, like all the other pundits on both sides of the equation are seeing, is Trump is still leading the race despite all the expectations he would crash and burn weeks after he entered the race. And all the attention he is getting from the media and Democratic naysayers tells me they/you are genuinely threatened by the strength of his “HUGE” popularity.

stanleybmanly's avatar

@Cruiser I don’t believe that anyone on the left views Trrump’s candidacy as a threat. Quite the contrary, I look at the man as a HUGE gift to the Democrats and a monkey wrench jamming up the Republican machine. The left looks on with glee and anticipation and we’re all just drooling with wonder at just which segment of the electorate the Donald will insult next. The Democrats should actually pay Trump for the services he provides them. No amount of sleazy negative campaigning comes close to the effect of the pronouncements from Trump’s own mouth. For a moribund and listless Democratic Party, Trump is a Godsend.

jerv's avatar

@Cruiser I see….

So, according to you, the best way to get an idea what the vast majority of people think is to ask some talking head pundit rather than to ask the people themselves. Got it. Since that’s how it goes, could you tell me the opinions of every other jelly here? I mean, if you are correct then you know how they feel better than they do.

@All_others You can stop posting now. @Cruiser knows what you are thinking already. We can all just log out of Fluther; he’s got it all handled. And don’t worry, he is 150% accurate too, so whatever he says actually is what you are thinking!

jerv's avatar

@Cruiser Okay, seriously now, we are talking about an entity who has often had factual headlines about them be more over-the-top and surreal than any satire from, say, The Onion could ever be.

The fact that Trump has more support than “None of the above” tells me that a lot of Republican voters still take him as a serious candidate. Personally, I figure that the best he could hope for was a third place finish as a third party candidate. While the theory of having a non-politician in political office may appeal to those who would rather have a government weak enough to smother with a pillow in their sleep, many people prefer to restrict power to those with a proven history. And since there is SO much more to running a nation than the budget, I don’t think a CEO or entrepreneur has the skills to make a competent leader… though the fact that Fiorina is even in the race implies that at least a fair number of Republicans are of the opinion that economic policy is the only thing that has the slightest bit of importance.

No, the real threat of the Trump candidacy is not the possibility of Trump becoming POTUS, but rather what it indicates about Conservatives. There was a time when the most popular candidate within the GOP would be someone like you; intelligent, diplomatic, a bit right-of-center (at least on economic matters), and generally electable. Where Trump would’ve been seen as a fringe candidate by at least 90% of GOP supporters rather than an actual voice for his party.

In other words, the outcome of the election isn’t what worries me. What worries me is that a large percentage of voters have lost their fucking minds while a whole lot of people like you are going to either wind up disenfranchised or wind up going batshit insane in order to maintain party unity. I don’t mind a world full of humans who have differing views, but I get a little nervous when a bunch of people lose their minds and exalt a racist with delusions of grandeur and a history of bankruptcy.

So, does Trump truly speak for all Conservatives? Do you think Mexicans are predominantly drug dealers and rapists? I mean, I would understand if you liked him for his tax plan; while I disagree with it, at least the “flat tax” idea has been part of the party platform for a long time, and isn’t as extreme as building a wall thousands of miles long and trying to get someone else to pay for it.

If someone you cared for/about started doing things like shoving raisins in their ears and insisting squirrels were messengers from God, would you be even the least bit concerned? On second thought, you already answered that by not being concerned about Trump.

jerv's avatar

And before you say anything about Bernie being crazy too, let me ask you this; has the rest of the world gone insane as well? Sanders may be a bit different by American standards, but he’s pretty normal by EU standards. Like him or hate him, there are over 700 million people (yes, twice the population of the US) who share his mindset.

Cruiser's avatar

@stanleybmanly I would sincerely disagree nobody on left feels threatened by Trumps popularity because if they truly felt that way then they would not give him all the free air time and openly mock and criticize him. Just look at how hot and bothered you and @jerv is over him. Pretty humorous to me. Just be mindful when you comment to me, know that I never once said Trump would be a good choice for President let alone the Repub nominee as IMO it would be a HUGE mistake to do so and not because he would be a dream opponent for the Dems to face in the General Election.

stanleybmanly's avatar

Hot and bothered? The man gets all that free air time for the same reason Honey boo boo was a “sensation”. How can I resist mocking and criticizing him? I mean what do you expect? The man leads the field in the Republican run up to the presidency. Objectively, he has an advantage in that he can’t possibly be as bad as he looks or sounds nor as bad as we expect.

jerv's avatar

@Cruiser Actually, I was reacting to two other things; one being the dismissal of polls representing popular opinion, the other being the inability to get my point across. I find communications issues extremely frustrating.

If you can’t see the meaning behind “No, the real threat of the Trump candidacy is not the possibility of Trump becoming POTUS, but rather what it indicates about Conservatives.” then I’m not sure that we can effectively communicate on this issue as a central part of my position is a concept that you cannot comprehend. Otherwise you would’ve understood that sentence, as well as getting that I never actually claimed that you supported Trump, only that you are a Conservative and questioning whether Trump spoke for all of you.

Cruiser's avatar

@stanleybmanly You fail to acknowledge the real reason(s) he is so popular is that many Americans are sick of career politicians and their obstructive Governance and Trump supporters obviously think a trained monkey could do a better job at being President than Obama.

jerv's avatar

@Cruiser If that were the case, Vermin Supreme would be polling higher.

Cruiser's avatar

@jerv Not so true….despite your closed mind about Republicans there are actually more than a few conservatives that can make an intelligent conscious informed decisions who would never in their wildest dreams cast a vote for the Donald.

jerv's avatar

@Cruiser I am well aware of that, hence my fears that recent events within the GOP may cause many to wind up without a party. For instance, Boehner and Bernanke recently expressed feelings of betrayal and abandonment, but I don’t see either of them voting for a Democrat any time soon. That was actually the reason I asked this question, though sadly it wound up derailed with the help of someone who is a shining example of why I even asked that question in the first place.

You are one of the first people I think of when I think “sane Conservative”. You are the type of person I wish I saw in the running for the Republican nomination; a person who embraces traditional Conservative values without becoming a parody. Sadly, not all Conservatives are intelligent or informed. Given what McCain did to try to get support from the party base in 2012 and how popular Trump is right now, I think that is pretty obvious.

stanleybmanly's avatar

The trouble is that those Repiblicans capable of an intelligent informed decision are increasingly on the outskirts of what passes for reality in the Republican Party. It is a genuine crisis, and were I in your shoes, I should resist such embarrassing references as “trained monkeys ”.

_Seek_'s avatar

“Trained” is certainly an overestimate.

jerv's avatar

@stanleybmanly They are called “RINOs” and gradually being purged from the party.

stanleybmanly's avatar

It would be fun to gloat over the disarray were it not for the fact that the country is rudderless in the bargain

jerv's avatar

The difference between tragedy and comedy is detachment. There are tons of serious things that are funny in hindsight or from a third-person perspective. For instance, being hit in the balls; sucks when it happens to you, but hilarious when it happens to someone on YouTube.

Cruiser's avatar

@stanleybmanly “the fact that the country is rudderless ” is exactly the reason Trump, Carson and Fiorina are leading the Republican polls because of how the potential voters despise both Dem and Repub career establishment politicians. Combined the 3 represent over 65% of polled Republican voters and that is a formidable percent add in I am sure there is a sizable percent of independents that feel the same way about establishment politicians that would assuredly cast a vote in favor for a true non-establishment candidate and a good number of Democrats that could very well vote for a non-establishment candidate hoping for some real change to the political system that has not served us well for a long long time.

The real mud slinging hasn’t happened yet so it is way too early to see who will emerge as the real front runners on both sides and I expect some dramatic changes in the polls once it commences and we get a couple more debates under our belts.

stanleybmanly's avatar

I wait to watch Carson smothered by his lovely and VERY rich competitors.

jerv's avatar

@Cruiser That also partly explains Sanders. While he lacks much in name recognition outside of Vermont and the surrounding area, he provides a Liberal alternative to Hillary, who is undeniably an establishment politician. In that respect, he serves the same role in the Democratic primary as Trump, Fiorina, and Carson fill amongst Republicans.

What sets him apart from the three Republicans you mention is that he has managed to be in politics long enough to become “part of the establishment” without actually doing so. That gives him competence on par with governors and other Senators while retaining the qualities that got him elected as two-term Mayor of Burlington, VT before getting sent to Congress.

But while some may consider him a radical, he truly is no more radical than anything you’ll find over in Europe, especially the Nordic section. You would have to try pretty hard to convince me that Trump and Carson are not more radical than Sanders.

That combination of experience and non-conformity makes him viable enough that he will survive and remain in the race once the circus tents come down. He’s among the more qualified candidates on either side. If we were to narrow the field by competence and qualifications to take the job while dismissing those who have objectively poor track records, that leaves Clinton, Sanders, Bush, Rubio and candidates polling less than the margin of error.

I see a dilemma for the Republicans there though. While the Democrats have effectively narrowed their field down to just two viable candidates that between them satisfy the majority of the party base, the Republicans aren’t even close to that. Part of the reason for that is that the Republican base itself is divided between those who want a competent, experienced Conservative in the Oval Office and those treating this election like a WWE pay-per-view.

That means that both Hillary and Bernie have the luxury of being able to work on the primary and still have time to work on their post-primary campaign while their opponents are too busy trying to get the support of half the party without alienating the other half (a feat which I consider virtually impossible due to the magnitude of the ideological divide between them) which will leave whoever wins the GOP nomination a little less prepared when they have to try winning over swing voters in a general election. And how they campaign in the primary will set the tone for how well they do in November 2016 since moderating their rhetoric too much will lose their base while catering to the base will lose the middle; again, McCain 2012 comes to mind.

“The real mud slinging hasn’t happened yet so it is way too early to see who will emerge as the real front runners on both sides and I expect some dramatic changes in the polls once it commences and we get a couple more debates under our belts.”

Entirely so. And by New Years, I expect that those are the four names you’ll see the most in any discussion of serious contenders. Then the real mud-slinging starts, though I seriously doubt Sanders will take part in that behavior the way more mainstream candidates do; he hasn’t done it in over 30 years, and I don’t think he’ll start any time soon. If he does wind up beating Hillary for the Democratic nomination, that trait could make for an unconventional election campaign when it’s just him and whoever the GOP puts up. But that is months down the road.

On a semi-related note, have you noticed the difference of opinion in who won the Democratic debate? Given how many Conservatives complain about “Liberal media”, I think it’s hilarious.

Pandora's avatar

I agree with @Dutchess_III Hilary did surprise me and Bernie disappointed a bit. I don’t think free college is the answer. All that will mean is that more teens not willing to grow up will go to college, just to avoid growing up. I don’t think it fair that the tax payer pick up that tab. As it is our high schools differ in the quality of education according to zip code. We have lotteries that are suppose to be for education, and we have kids selling stuff to raise funds and we have hidden taxes that go to local schools. It seems its never enough and classes continue to be over crowded. This is what will happen to colleges.

Quality will suffer. I do think the education system needs to be revamped. Colleges need to revamp their credits. I think if a kid wants a degree in accounting he shouldn’t have to take an art class or dance class to get enough credits to graduate. Bare bones classes should be offered. If I’m hiring someone to do my books, I would care less if you can dance, or draw. Colleges do all they can to keep student in school all day so they can’t accomplish finishing in 3 or 2 years what takes 5 to 4 years. The longer you stay the more they get paid.

I do think banks need to set a low interest rate loan that is fixed and like Sanders suggest, Wall Street pick up the interest rates (not the whole loan, just the interest) instead of the whole thing. Reason is because people rarely appreciate what comes for free. When they know they have to pay it back, they are less likely to screw up in school.

I really like Bernie because he isn’t bought by wall street. And he is consistent. But I think his promises are too high (so doomed) However, I’m waiting to see who he will choose as his second because I think he needs someone he trust that can make him see reason or at least compromise when needed. He tends to sometimes have an all or nothing approach. Like with gun laws. And nothing is worse than something. Hillary I feel is progressive and will fight like hell to change things, but in a reasonable way. But it does concern me that she may bend back too much. One is too cautious and the other is far from.

As for the Republicans. I couldn’t start without writing a novel. I think their days are done. They are all over the place. And they think the way to lead is by being outrageous, or stepping back in time to the 1920’s. I like forward. Its time for new ideas and growth.

I agree with the quote, “If you are not growing you are dying”

DrasticDreamer's avatar

@Pandora I kindly disagree about free college not being the answer. It works in a lot of other countries and it could easily work here. In a society that has made it impossible for the average person to be able to afford to go to community college, that’s a massive problem that needs to change immediately. If only the rich can afford a higher education, you’re going to see the gap between the rich and the poor get even wider and it’s already far too big to support a stable economy. Tuitions keeps rising, year by year, and it’s only going to get worse. Sure, there are loans – but those get a lot of people in debt literally for the rest of their lives, which is precisely what the richest people want, because it keeps them rich since they’re in control of it.

Cruiser's avatar

@DrasticDreamer Though I do agree with you I would posit the argument of free higher education merely perpetuates the dilemma we have between public and private elementary education. Vouchers could solve that problem which is nominal compared to the cost of a community college degree and an Ivy League private tuition college education. Where does this argument end? I see it that kids that get the free college education will not be farther down the yellow brick road than the kids that took the other fork in the road and got the vocational training. The have’s will sidestep the freebees and still pay their way for an Ivy League/Big Ten degree towards top paying careers…how can you or our Government ever create sensible policies that get in the way of that dynamic?

jerv's avatar

@Cruiser The way I see it, vouchers wouldn’t be necessary if costs weren’t so high to begin with. Given a choice between sending a kid to a free school or one that costs $20k/semester and being handed a coupon, I’d rather cut the bullshit and go with the free one… unless I were a bureaucrat whose livelihood would be threatened by a simpler system that rendered my job obsolete. As one who favors fiscal responsibility and smaller government, I see no reason to complicate matters, especially not at taxpayer expense. Okay, one reason; creating jobs that don’t need doing, and more jobs to administer over those unnecessary jobs, and expanding headcount in the next layer of government to oversee those, and… you get the idea. I’d rather spend that money more efficiently.

But regardless of how one feels about vouchers, our current system needs some major reform. Reforms that those who benefit from the status quo will/do oppose, and that those who feel change is needed will disagree on as each has their own ideas about what needs to be done.

On a related note, have you glanced at what’s going on with charter schools in WA?

Cruiser's avatar

@jerv You must not have/had kids in school because vouchers are not at all about the high cost of an education. Vouchers are intended to provide money that a family has already paid to a public school district in property taxes so said family can then have a choice as to which school they desire their child to attend BECAUSE so many school are under performing these days and many bright kids get a marginal education as a result. Vouchers allow the family to spend their educational dollars where they best see fit as opposed to having to be forced to attend crappy school districts. In the end vouchers would in many cases not be needed if we hired teachers based on their performance and not by crappy teachers getting to stay teaching because of tenure.

_Seek_'s avatar

Except that you can’t judge a teacher before you’ve worked with them, and you have to apply for school choice a good six to eight months before the beginning of the school year. And then you will likely end up going to the local school anyway because the “good schools” fill up quickly, especially because preference is given to families with more than one child.

If you realise a teacher or school doesn’t work for you a third of the way through the year, the voucher system doesn’t help.

Really the only people who benefit from the voucher system are people who send their kids to a school close to their job, rather than close to home, so they don’t get charged extra for picking the kids up late from after school care when traffic is heavy.

Cruiser's avatar

I see your points @Seek and they are all valid but in only specific situations. Our second home we had was our dream home and when it became time to send our son to first grade we encountered nothing but problems with the school and not any specific teacher just the school as there were so many immigrants that half the day was spent teaching the kids to read and write English. Because there were no other options available in the school, we finally upped and moved because our son was beyond bored with school. Had we had a voucher to apply towards tuition at a nearby private school we may have been able stay in our home.

_Seek_'s avatar

Sounds like your situation was quite specific.

Cruiser's avatar

@Seek Yes my situation is specific, but not unusual as my situation then is why private schools exist and why so many home school. Also vouchers would benefit all the others who have to endure mediocre education in public schools because they do not have the extra income to afford a switch.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther