CNN Democratic Debate

• Spock

  

  Opening comments......The Webb guy sounds like a hard core dude. O'Malley sounds very presidential and certainly looks the part
• Spock

  

  Bernie is a hypocrite.....like he doesn't take millions from these 1%ers
• Spock

  

  So Anderson Cooper is part of the Clinton foundation. Seems fair?
• Spock

  

  Bernie Sanders will never be elected in a general election.
• Spock

  

  God these clowns talking about military force and their views on foreign policy is painful to watch. None of them are fit to be commander in chief.
• Belly35

  

  I got my truck washed .. Did I miss anything
• friendfromlowry

  Belly35;1756942 wrote:I got my truck washed .. Did I miss anything

  Just a republican talking to himself about a debate he was obviously going to hate. You'll fit right in if you want to join him.
• sleeper

  

  Debate in summary from all candidates:
  
  "Business is the root of all evil"
• HitsRus

  

  What I found almost shocking is the acceptance of main stream politicians and media, that there is even a consideration of debate over whether gun manufacturers should be held "responsible" for people who misuse their product.... Analogous to holding car companies and dealers responsible for deaths due to drunk driving. SMH.
• isadore

  congratulations Hillary for taking for winning the debate and taking the next step toward becoming the first female President of the United States
• isadore

  HitsRus;1756952 wrote:What I found almost shocking is the acceptance of main stream politicians and media, that there is even a consideration of debate over whether gun manufacturers should be held "responsible" for people who misuse their product.... Analogous to holding car companies and dealers responsible for deaths due to drunk driving. SMH.

  An automobile is designed for transportation, a gun is designed to kill
• Al Bundy

  isadore;1756960 wrote:An automobile is designed for transportation, a gun is designed to kill

  More people buy guns for defense than to kill.
• isadore

  Al Bundy;1756961 wrote:More people buy guns for defense than to kill.

  1. In the case of the suit, they were bought for the purpose of robbing and killing
  2. Guns are specifically designed to kill
  3. For those who use the car analogy. gosh with cars we license folks to operate them.
• ernest_t_bass

  

  If, for some reason, Hillary is our next president, I have lost 100% hope in our country. 100%. Not because she is a woman, but because of everything that has happened (with her) over the course of the last few years. It's amazing to me that she still holds her current office... and now she may be voted in as president... Unreal.
• ZWICK 4 PREZ

  

  Bernie kilt it.
• cruiser_96

  

  I watched for a bit last night. One thing I can't wrap my brain around is the craving for more government in our day-to-day lives. How, in roughly 250 years, did we go from leaving one oppressive system of government to what we heard last night? (DEMs are not alone on this; they just seem to lead the charge.)
• ernest_t_bass

  

  cruiser_96;1756972 wrote:I watched for a bit last night. One thing I can't wrap my brain around is the craving for more government in our day-to-day lives. How, in roughly 250 years, did we go from leaving one oppressive system of government to what we heard last night? (DEMs are not alone on this; they just seem to lead the charge.)

  The conglomerate that is the American people are sheep.
• Tiernan

  Vast majority of Americans want somebody to take care of them...THAT one fact alone is why HRC will be the next POTUS. Leroy and his buddy Sancho sharin' a 40 waitin' at the mailbox for this month's check couldn't give a flying fuck about Russia, they couldn't find Syria on a map if you circled it, the economy is no concern of theirs because they don't contribute to it, domestic security doesn't phase them because they both own Glocks & a pit bull. They have one concern in life and that is when The Man is gonna deliver The Check so they can buy another 40.
• BoatShoes

  HitsRus;1756952 wrote:What I found almost shocking is the acceptance of main stream politicians and media, that there is even a consideration of debate over whether gun manufacturers should be held "responsible" for people who misuse their product.... Analogous to holding car companies and dealers responsible for deaths due to drunk driving. SMH.

  What I find shocking is how people act like this is completely absurd when they are seemingly unaware of the various theories of products liability that affect all sorts of other goods. You seem to think the only theory of liability is negligence and that people are saying manufacturers should have joint liability for said negligence when that is not the case.
  
  The argument is that gun manufacturers should be liable for the damages under a different theory of liability as other types of merchants are in different instances.
  
  For example car companies are subject to liability for design defects that harm people and one such theory of design defects is that manufacturers should be liable for products that are inherently dangerous.
  
  For example, if a drunk driver or a mad man drives a car into a school bus and kills a lot of children - and it just so happens that the car was designed with, say, dynamite in the engine to ensure that it could be an efficient killing machine, the car manufacturer could still be partly liable for this inherently dangerous design.
  
  These sorts of have theories have been applied against guns for a long, long time like every other product.
  
  For example, back in 1816 in Dixon v. Bell a gun owner was held liable when his 12 year old servant pointed a gun at 13 year old with the intent to "pretend" to shoot her but the gun was loaded. The reasoning was because dangerous products like guns create special duties.
  
  And, some scholars have argued that firearms should fall within the inherently dangerous design doctrine which might justify liability for the manufacturers in addition to their customer custodians of firearms.
  
  This sort of tort system of enforcement for civil wrongs is said to be justified under traditional libertarian doctrine because it induces the marketplace to solve the problem itself. And, that is why products liability plays a much bigger role in the more market-oriented United States than in other countries. But I suppose it is unsurprising that rightists do not favor policies that cohere with their own doctrines. Just look at many of them endorse Trump who is as much of a hardcore trade protectionist as Bernie Sanders.
  
  It is like there is no genuine ideological coherence that defines conservatism in the United States anymore except "Oppose the Democrats and Obama even when they do things like pass Free Trade Deals!" Take the irony of the National Review arguing that Denmark is NOT Socialist despite universal healthcare and paid leave, etc. Well no crap! You are the ones calling Bernie a socialist for wanting the same thing!
  
  With that being said, a system modeled after something like Workers Comp wherein Firearm Manufacturers bear some of the cost of the harms inflicted on society by their products without having mass torts that would put them under like the lawsuits against Abestos manufacturing industry did for those companies. Frankly, I think that is a reasonable way forward without undue burdens on second amendment rights.
  
  Many anti-gun folks would probably prefer mass torts so they could put gun manufacturers under but I would rather we have a Workers Comp type system that would put in place a structure that would create incentives for the market itself and firearm enthusiasts to become motivated to solve the problems in away that coheres with their values.
  
  If the chamber of commerce could make the deal on workers comp as opposed to being sued all the time maybe the gun lobby would accept gun violence comp versus being sued or (eventually having the industry shut down in its entire when the U.S. becomes California in 10 years).
• BoatShoes

  cruiser_96;1756972 wrote:I watched for a bit last night. One thing I can't wrap my brain around is the craving for more government in our day-to-day lives. How, in roughly 250 years, did we go from leaving one oppressive system of government to what we heard last night? (DEMs are not alone on this; they just seem to lead the charge.)

  It's simple. Non-ideological and emotional invested conservatives and libertarians do not find the idea of things like paid-leave, non-intervention in the middle-east and tuition free college to be "oppressive." They may disagree but they do no think of these folks on stage to be wannabe tyrants.
  
  I'm listening to talk radio today - these same people who were convinced that Hillary was done - they simply cannot comprehend that she did perfectly fine last night in the minds of most people.
• BoatShoes

  ernest_t_bass;1756973 wrote:The conglomerate that is the American people are sheep.

  From the guy who said an economic collapse was inevitable three years ago. Time to reevaluate why what you think about the world does not bear out in reality, methinks.
• BoatShoes

  ernest_t_bass;1756968 wrote:If, for some reason, Hillary is our next president, I have lost 100% hope in our country. 100%. Not because she is a woman, but because of everything that has happened (with her) over the course of the last few years. It's amazing to me that she still holds her current office... and now she may be voted in as president... Unreal.

  Bernie Sanders summed it up. Nobody cares about the stuff that balkanized conservative media outlets and sources say matters. The Conservative Media Complex has found a way to get incredibly rich by telling people what they want to hear - that the conventional media is in the tank for Democrats and can't be trusted. Only they tell the truth and the truth is that Hillary is an incompetent loon who has a secret illness, conspired against Benghazi and sent classified emails to the Russians.
• BoatShoes

  sleeper;1756944 wrote:Debate in summary from all candidates:
  
  "Business is the root of all evil"

  Personally I thought they made Obama's "anti-business rhetoric" look tame by comparison.
• BoatShoes

  Spock;1756931 wrote:God these clowns talking about military force and their views on foreign policy is painful to watch. None of them are fit to be commander in chief.

  Jim Webb talked more sense on foreign policy than any Republican or Democrat candidate and would be a great SecDef in either a Republican or Democrat administration. His criticism of the Iran Deal, despite limited time was nuanced and avoided the over the top rhetoric of the entire Republican field.
• ernest_t_bass

  

  BoatShoes;1756982 wrote:From the guy who said an economic collapse was inevitable three years ago. Time to reevaluate why what you think about the world does not bear out in reality, methinks.

  link? I mean... fuck. 3 years ago?