Bernie and Cruz to debate Obamacare

[Born To Slay 10,996]

Just now, Whispering said:

You aren't the target audience for Cruz. Lol Those crazy conservatives will believe the improbable promises and lies. They believed all of Trump's lies. The GOP and conservatives will believe what Cruz says and the liberals will believe Bernie. It's a divided country. 

I think Bernie's goal should be to win over independent voters tbh

and Bernie will ask for specifics, I'm not saying the whole nation will just change their minds but I can't think of a better reason to change sides then Bernie roasting this ****.

[socotra 3,357]

This should've been the 2016 Presidential Election. We could've had a serious policy discussion instead of a personality war. 

[Eighteen 5,430]

i'll watch this. exciting! (i can't stand ted cruz). i can't stand paul ryan either but at least paul ryan is dilf

[Whispering 18,865]

2 hours ago, Indyl said:

This should've been the 2016 Presidential Election. We could've had a serious policy discussion instead of a personality war. 

There was no serious policy discussions overall with Trump in the mix. Same thing he did to the Republican debates. The Democratic debates were where we heard policy discussions, the Republican debates were a clown show. 

[Lion Heart 15,041]

Lyin' Ted already lost. 

[socotra 3,357]

20 hours ago, Whispering said:

There was no serious policy discussions overall with Trump in the mix. Same thing he did to the Republican debates. The Democratic debates were where we heard policy discussions, the Republican debates were a clown show. 

Oh, absolutely. But there's no doubt that with Hillary's baggage, her mere presence dilutes the quality of the conversation because any opponent is going to try to zero in on her various scandals. That would have been the case if Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, John Kasich, or any other candidate had been up there instead of Trump (or even if Gary Johnson had made it, for that matter).

With Ted Cruz and Bernie Sanders, there isn't much personality issues to play off of. Neither have had any scandals and both are principled. They're forced to talk about policy because there isn't any other disqualifying factor for them aside from their policy positions. 

[Katharine Hepburn 4,607]

Neither of them wield any judicial power, they're just senators who failed at the presidency and getting into the cabinet.

[Whispering 18,865]

8 minutes ago, Indyl said:

Oh, absolutely. But there's no doubt that with Hillary's baggage, her mere presence dilutes the quality of the conversation because any opponent is going to try to zero in on her various scandals. That would have been the case if Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, John Kasich, or any other candidate had been up there instead of Trump (or even if Gary Johnson had made it, for that matter).

With Ted Cruz and Bernie Sanders, there isn't much personality issues to play off of. Neither have had any scandals and both are principled. They're forced to talk about policy because there isn't any other disqualifying factor for them aside from their policy positions. 

They aren't running for office and certainly not running for the office of the President between the two of them. If they were, there was more than enough baggage to pull up from years of being in Congress. Bernie had plenty of comments on Cuba, socialism, and on communism to pull up and to frighten any Republican. His stances on programs for healthcare and college education would have been framed as handouts for the "takers" and would have played right into the rural towns and white folk thinking that "others" are getting ahead of them and taking their place. Bernie had plenty of baggage, Hillary just didn't touch it in the primaries. Make no mistake, the GOP (and the Russians) already had a folder on him ready to go! There would have been plenty of fake news thrown in, as well, that would have been distributed to Social media and new sites every hour of every day.  

[socotra 3,357]

21 hours ago, Whispering said:

They aren't running for office and certainly not running for the office of the President between the two of them. If they were, there was more than enough baggage to pull up from years of being in Congress. Bernie had plenty of comments on Cuba, socialism, and on communism to pull up and to frighten any Republican. His stances on programs for healthcare and college education would have been framed as handouts for the "takers" and would have played right into the rural towns and white folk thinking that "others" are getting ahead of them and taking their place. Bernie had plenty of baggage, Hillary just didn't touch it in the primaries. Make no mistake, the GOP (and the Russians) already had a folder on him ready to go! There would have been plenty of fake news thrown in, as well, that would have been distributed to Social media and new sites every hour of every day.  

I didn't mean that they were. I meant if they had been the nominees of their respective parties, a debate would have been more substantive than those between Trump and Clinton. 

Of course, in any career as lengthy as Sanders's, there will be questionable statements to spin and votes to misrepresent. There's a number of things on Cruz as well. I will repeat what I said earlier: it all relates to policy and their careers in Congress and as activists. Their arguments will be about, as you said, the opponent's stances, instead of their sexual assault history or mishandling of emails. Bernie's "baggage" isn't even remotely equatable to the sort of baggage Clinton has.

[Whispering 18,865]

2 hours ago, Indyl said:

I didn't mean that they were. I meant if they had been the nominees of their respective parties, a debate would have been more substantive than those between Trump and Clinton. 

Of course, in any career as lengthy as Sanders's, there will be questionable statements to spin and votes to misrepresent. There's a number of things on Cruz as well. I will repeat what I said earlier: it all relates to policy and their careers in Congress and as activists. Their arguments will be about, as you said, the opponent's stances, instead of their sexual assault history or mishandling of emails. Bernie's "baggage" isn't even remotely equatable to the sort of baggage Clinton has.

Yeah, just like a debate between Clinton and Cruz would have been more substantive than that between Clinton and Trump. Anytime you threw Trump in the debate, it was like trying to talk policy with a kindergartner. Lol

Oh, there is always something to dig up personal, like dabbling in far right communist politics, living off unemployment checks, the rape fantasy stories, being a deadbeat dad, not holding a steady job or voting until he was forty, trying to send low-level nuclear waste from Vermont to be shipped to the poor Latino community of Sierra Blanca, Texas, praise of the Sandinistas but he also attended an anti-American rally, the mishandling of campaign funds...and that doesn't count what they had on him through researching emails and private accounts, etc. 

Bernie's baggage is every bit as potentially damaging as anyone else's, including Clinton's. 

[Goosey 3,017]

On 1/31/2017 at 8:11 PM, ItsTommyBitch said:

I cant understand why the republicans would let this debate even happen

Cruz was known for his smarts and cunning during his legal career. Maybe didn't translate so well into politicking.

 Ted Cruz, champion of the caucuses, is the scion of a particular version of America and of a peculiar era in its history; a politician who repels or baffles many of his compatriots, even as others rally to his godly standard.

Superficially the senator from Texas is a classic overachiever, whose ability to surmount Himalayan obstacles—such as winning that office in his first-ever political race—bespeaks and fuels an adamantine self-confidence; the sort whose warp-speed ascent is powered by strenuous calculation and fearsome intelligence. Don Willett, a judge and long-term acquaintance, describes Mr Cruz as a “freakishly gifted” lawyer; watching him argue at the Supreme Court, during his stint as Texas’s solicitor-general, was “like watching Michael Jackson unveil the moonwalk.”

x

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

Just now, Goosey said:

Cruz was known for his smarts and cunning during his legal career. Maybe didn't translate so well into politicking.

 Ted Cruz, champion of the caucuses, is the scion of a particular version of America and of a peculiar era in its history; a politician who repels or baffles many of his compatriots, even as others rally to his godly standard.

Superficially the senator from Texas is a classic overachiever, whose ability to surmount Himalayan obstacles—such as winning that office in his first-ever political race—bespeaks and fuels an adamantine self-confidence; the sort whose warp-speed ascent is powered by strenuous calculation and fearsome intelligence. Don Willett, a judge and long-term acquaintance, describes Mr Cruz as a “freakishly gifted” lawyer; watching him argue at the Supreme Court, during his stint as Texas’s solicitor-general, was “like watching Michael Jackson unveil the moonwalk.”

x

You took my sentence out of context... shocker