CNN Flint, MI Democratic debate @8pm ET **live commentary thread**

[indysaff]

Rambling!

[Gass3268]

Sanders Jewish background is pretty powerful.

[user12345]

No, God isn't relevant to government. America is not a theocracy. Next.

Asking a candidate about their personal life is relevant though because it can affect their policies and positions.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Bernie's tuition free public college plan could've been paid for for the next 28 years with the money spent on the Iraq War.

BTW - wouldn't that require agreement with the states, since they're the ones who control College tuition in THEIR public institutions?

So you think they couldn't do that? We have money for war but not for education or infrastructure?

Honestly, no. That would require the Federal Government not only agreeing to the policy, but then negotiations with each and every state government to get it done. I'm not sure how familiar you are with inter-governmental agreements... but it's a big part of the my job. Sanders' policy is all about the aspiration without a real plan of how it works. I remember Clinton making that exact point during a debate, and Sanders tried to suggest that Clinton didn't care about tuition, which was pretty indicative of the Sanders policy approach.

It's a train-wreck.

It's not about what I think SHOULD be the case, but how it happens. Which is why I'm not a Bernie supporter... I suppose.

A Wall Street speculation tax could pay for that.

Again, you're missing my point. It's not about how you PAY for it, it's about how you put it into place in a federated system where the Federal Government doesn't have any control. There's step one, figuring out how you pay for something the next step is how you roll it out.  

[Wiz in Wis]

Bernie's tuition free public college plan could've been paid for for the next 28 years with the money spent on the Iraq War.

BTW - wouldn't that require agreement with the states, since they're the ones who control College tuition in THEIR public institutions?

So you think they couldn't do that? We have money for war but not for education or infrastructure?

Honestly, no. That would require the Federal Government not only agreeing to the policy, but then negotiations with each and every state government to get it done. I'm not sure how familiar you are with inter-governmental agreements... but it's a big part of the my job. Sanders' policy is all about the aspiration without a real plan of how it works. I remember Clinton making that exact point during a debate, and Sanders tried to suggest that Clinton didn't care about tuition, which was pretty indicative of the Sanders policy approach.

It's a train-wreck.

It's not about what I think SHOULD be the case, but how it happens. Which is why I'm not a Bernie supporter... I suppose.

A Wall Street speculation tax could pay for that.

Again, you're missing my point. It's not about how you PAY for it, it's about how you put it into place in a federated system where the Federal Government doesn't have any control. There's step one, figuring out how you pay for something the next step is how you roll it out.  

I don't think there is a single Democrat on this board that disagrees with the proposition that there is a plausible way to pay for universal healthcare, or college tuition for all, or increased spending on social security. The key difference is that Bernie supporters also claim that the GOP will vanish in a puff of white smoke, and that the Democrats will all agree with President Sanders' plans 100% of the time. One candidate is a "goals" candidate, and the other is a "results" candidate. That's the key difference.

[Adam Griffin]

The Dreaded Cough strikes again!

[Admiral Kizaru]

Bernie's tuition free public college plan could've been paid for for the next 28 years with the money spent on the Iraq War.

BTW - wouldn't that require agreement with the states, since they're the ones who control College tuition in THEIR public institutions?

So you think they couldn't do that? We have money for war but not for education or infrastructure?

Honestly, no. That would require the Federal Government not only agreeing to the policy, but then negotiations with each and every state government to get it done. I'm not sure how familiar you are with inter-governmental agreements... but it's a big part of the my job. Sanders' policy is all about the aspiration without a real plan of how it works. I remember Clinton making that exact point during a debate, and Sanders tried to suggest that Clinton didn't care about tuition, which was pretty indicative of the Sanders policy approach.

It's a train-wreck.

It's not about what I think SHOULD be the case, but how it happens. Which is why I'm not a Bernie supporter... I suppose.

A Wall Street speculation tax could pay for that.

Again, you're missing my point. It's not about how you PAY for it, it's about how you put it into place in a federated system where the Federal Government doesn't have any control. There's step one, figuring out how you pay for something the next step is how you roll it out.  

I don't think there is a single Democrat on this board that disagrees with the proposition that there is a plausible way to pay for universal healthcare, or college tuition for all, or increased spending on social security. The key difference is that Bernie supporters also claim that the GOP will vanish in a puff of white smoke, and that the Democrats will all agree with President Sanders' plans 100% of the time. One candidate is a "goals" candidate, and the other is a "results" candidate. That's the key difference.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

The Dreaded Cough strikes again!

That cough will kill Hillary within a year.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

The Dreaded Cough strikes again!

That cough will kill Hillary within a year.

Well, Torie's National Enquirer Death Watch is well-advanced.

[RightBehind]

Bernie's tuition free public college plan could've been paid for for the next 28 years with the money spent on the Iraq War.

BTW - wouldn't that require agreement with the states, since they're the ones who control College tuition in THEIR public institutions?

So you think they couldn't do that? We have money for war but not for education or infrastructure?

Honestly, no. That would require the Federal Government not only agreeing to the policy, but then negotiations with each and every state government to get it done. I'm not sure how familiar you are with inter-governmental agreements... but it's a big part of the my job. Sanders' policy is all about the aspiration without a real plan of how it works. I remember Clinton making that exact point during a debate, and Sanders tried to suggest that Clinton didn't care about tuition, which was pretty indicative of the Sanders policy approach.

It's a train-wreck.

It's not about what I think SHOULD be the case, but how it happens. Which is why I'm not a Bernie supporter... I suppose.

A Wall Street speculation tax could pay for that.

Again, you're missing my point. It's not about how you PAY for it, it's about how you put it into place in a federated system where the Federal Government doesn't have any control. There's step one, figuring out how you pay for something the next step is how you roll it out.  

That's where I disagree. I'm fine with the federal government controlling things.

[Shadows]

I thought Clinton did well o on guns & spinning the auto bail-out but Sanders was very strong overall, undoubtedly. I'm happy with his performance & I thought he was better than Clinton. Clinton did the Clinton things, talking in circles & hitting the opponent on his perceivable weak point.

The behavior of Clinton hacks here are disgusting, apart from 1 or 2 who posts rational stuff, most are just horrible people. Also un-surprisingly Hillary's closet conservative ideology draws Republicans in the forum to the fold although almost every GOP supporter in the real world seems to hate Hillary!

But 1000 times better than the GOP debate, they should learn honestly!

[RightBehind]

Bernie's tuition free public college plan could've been paid for for the next 28 years with the money spent on the Iraq War.

BTW - wouldn't that require agreement with the states, since they're the ones who control College tuition in THEIR public institutions?

So you think they couldn't do that? We have money for war but not for education or infrastructure?

Honestly, no. That would require the Federal Government not only agreeing to the policy, but then negotiations with each and every state government to get it done. I'm not sure how familiar you are with inter-governmental agreements... but it's a big part of the my job. Sanders' policy is all about the aspiration without a real plan of how it works. I remember Clinton making that exact point during a debate, and Sanders tried to suggest that Clinton didn't care about tuition, which was pretty indicative of the Sanders policy approach.

It's a train-wreck.

It's not about what I think SHOULD be the case, but how it happens. Which is why I'm not a Bernie supporter... I suppose.

A Wall Street speculation tax could pay for that.

Again, you're missing my point. It's not about how you PAY for it, it's about how you put it into place in a federated system where the Federal Government doesn't have any control. There's step one, figuring out how you pay for something the next step is how you roll it out.  

I don't think there is a single Democrat on this board that disagrees with the proposition that there is a plausible way to pay for universal healthcare, or college tuition for all, or increased spending on social security. The key difference is that Bernie supporters also claim that the GOP will vanish in a puff of white smoke, and that the Democrats will all agree with President Sanders' plans 100% of the time. One candidate is a "goals" candidate, and the other is a "results" candidate. That's the key difference.

You're not going to go very far if you don't shoot high or don't dare to dream. Will there be opposition to Bernie's plans? Sure, but it's worth a try to go after these goals. The things we take for granted today were once considered to be pushing boundaries and/or laughed off by the opposition. Did the people who proposed these things just back off, or did they find ways to get it done?

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Bernie's tuition free public college plan could've been paid for for the next 28 years with the money spent on the Iraq War.

BTW - wouldn't that require agreement with the states, since they're the ones who control College tuition in THEIR public institutions?

So you think they couldn't do that? We have money for war but not for education or infrastructure?

Honestly, no. That would require the Federal Government not only agreeing to the policy, but then negotiations with each and every state government to get it done. I'm not sure how familiar you are with inter-governmental agreements... but it's a big part of the my job. Sanders' policy is all about the aspiration without a real plan of how it works. I remember Clinton making that exact point during a debate, and Sanders tried to suggest that Clinton didn't care about tuition, which was pretty indicative of the Sanders policy approach.

It's a train-wreck.

It's not about what I think SHOULD be the case, but how it happens. Which is why I'm not a Bernie supporter... I suppose.

A Wall Street speculation tax could pay for that.

Again, you're missing my point. It's not about how you PAY for it, it's about how you put it into place in a federated system where the Federal Government doesn't have any control. There's step one, figuring out how you pay for something the next step is how you roll it out.  

That's where I disagree. I'm fine with the federal government controlling things.

Again... not the issue. There are clear constitutional boundaries over what the Federal Government has control over and what the states do. I don't like your chances of getting every state government to hand over control of colleges to the Federal Government.

This is the issue - not pie-in-the-sky, not what could or would happen in an ideal world - what are the frameworks and structures you work within and how do you make such a scheme work?

Aiming high is great, big goals are great - but you need to figure out how it gets done. And that cannot be ignored.

[RightBehind]

Bernie's tuition free public college plan could've been paid for for the next 28 years with the money spent on the Iraq War.

BTW - wouldn't that require agreement with the states, since they're the ones who control College tuition in THEIR public institutions?

So you think they couldn't do that? We have money for war but not for education or infrastructure?

Honestly, no. That would require the Federal Government not only agreeing to the policy, but then negotiations with each and every state government to get it done. I'm not sure how familiar you are with inter-governmental agreements... but it's a big part of the my job. Sanders' policy is all about the aspiration without a real plan of how it works. I remember Clinton making that exact point during a debate, and Sanders tried to suggest that Clinton didn't care about tuition, which was pretty indicative of the Sanders policy approach.

It's a train-wreck.

It's not about what I think SHOULD be the case, but how it happens. Which is why I'm not a Bernie supporter... I suppose.

A Wall Street speculation tax could pay for that.

Again, you're missing my point. It's not about how you PAY for it, it's about how you put it into place in a federated system where the Federal Government doesn't have any control. There's step one, figuring out how you pay for something the next step is how you roll it out.  

That's where I disagree. I'm fine with the federal government controlling things.

Again... not the issue. There are clear constitutional boundaries over what the Federal Government has control over and what the states do. I don't like your chances of getting every state government to hand over control of colleges to the Federal Government.

This is the issue - not pie-in-the-sky, not what could or would happen in an ideal world - what are the frameworks and structures you work within and how do you make such a scheme work?

Aiming high is great, big goals are great - but you need to figure out how it gets done. And that cannot be ignored.

Except it's debatable. Some things people argue should be a state's issue turn out to be constitutional if the federal government took action. Yes, there is the 10th Amendment, but there's also the Commerce Clause and the Supremacy Clause.

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

That's where I disagree. I'm fine with the federal government controlling things.

You're not going to go very far if you don't shoot high or don't dare to dream. Will there be opposition to Bernie's plans? Sure, but it's worth a try to go after these goals. The things we take for granted today were once considered to be pushing boundaries and/or laughed off by the opposition. Did the people who proposed these things just back off, or did they find ways to get it done?

Good luck getting a repeal of the 10th Amendment through Congress and all the Republican states, and somehow getting the support of a public that enthusiastically endorses federalism.

I'm sure the revolution will go off without a hitch!

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Bernie's tuition free public college plan could've been paid for for the next 28 years with the money spent on the Iraq War.

BTW - wouldn't that require agreement with the states, since they're the ones who control College tuition in THEIR public institutions?

So you think they couldn't do that? We have money for war but not for education or infrastructure?

Honestly, no. That would require the Federal Government not only agreeing to the policy, but then negotiations with each and every state government to get it done. I'm not sure how familiar you are with inter-governmental agreements... but it's a big part of the my job. Sanders' policy is all about the aspiration without a real plan of how it works. I remember Clinton making that exact point during a debate, and Sanders tried to suggest that Clinton didn't care about tuition, which was pretty indicative of the Sanders policy approach.

It's a train-wreck.

It's not about what I think SHOULD be the case, but how it happens. Which is why I'm not a Bernie supporter... I suppose.

A Wall Street speculation tax could pay for that.

Again, you're missing my point. It's not about how you PAY for it, it's about how you put it into place in a federated system where the Federal Government doesn't have any control. There's step one, figuring out how you pay for something the next step is how you roll it out.  

That's where I disagree. I'm fine with the federal government controlling things.

Again... not the issue. There are clear constitutional boundaries over what the Federal Government has control over and what the states do. I don't like your chances of getting every state government to hand over control of colleges to the Federal Government.

This is the issue - not pie-in-the-sky, not what could or would happen in an ideal world - what are the frameworks and structures you work within and how do you make such a scheme work?

Aiming high is great, big goals are great - but you need to figure out how it gets done. And that cannot be ignored.

Except it's debatable. Some things people argue should be a state's issue turn out to be constitutional if the federal government took action. Yes, there is the 10th Amendment, but there's also the Commerce Clause and the Supremacy Clause.

You think setting up peoples hopes, only to have it fail it worth it, in the tiny chance that it succeeds. I think you should focus on working with what you have to get things done to help as many as possible.

[RightBehind]

That's where I disagree. I'm fine with the federal government controlling things.

You're not going to go very far if you don't shoot high or don't dare to dream. Will there be opposition to Bernie's plans? Sure, but it's worth a try to go after these goals. The things we take for granted today were once considered to be pushing boundaries and/or laughed off by the opposition. Did the people who proposed these things just back off, or did they find ways to get it done?

Good luck getting a repeal of the 10th Amendment through Congress and all the Republican states, and somehow getting the support of a public that enthusiastically endorses federalism.

I'm sure the revolution will go off without a hitch!

When did I say that I supported a repeal of the 10th Amendment? What I said is that some things done by the federal government is not unconstitutional and that there's also clauses which protect the federal government when it comes to action on tnings.

[RightBehind]

Bernie's tuition free public college plan could've been paid for for the next 28 years with the money spent on the Iraq War.

BTW - wouldn't that require agreement with the states, since they're the ones who control College tuition in THEIR public institutions?

So you think they couldn't do that? We have money for war but not for education or infrastructure?

Honestly, no. That would require the Federal Government not only agreeing to the policy, but then negotiations with each and every state government to get it done. I'm not sure how familiar you are with inter-governmental agreements... but it's a big part of the my job. Sanders' policy is all about the aspiration without a real plan of how it works. I remember Clinton making that exact point during a debate, and Sanders tried to suggest that Clinton didn't care about tuition, which was pretty indicative of the Sanders policy approach.

It's a train-wreck.

It's not about what I think SHOULD be the case, but how it happens. Which is why I'm not a Bernie supporter... I suppose.

A Wall Street speculation tax could pay for that.

Again, you're missing my point. It's not about how you PAY for it, it's about how you put it into place in a federated system where the Federal Government doesn't have any control. There's step one, figuring out how you pay for something the next step is how you roll it out.  

That's where I disagree. I'm fine with the federal government controlling things.

Again... not the issue. There are clear constitutional boundaries over what the Federal Government has control over and what the states do. I don't like your chances of getting every state government to hand over control of colleges to the Federal Government.

This is the issue - not pie-in-the-sky, not what could or would happen in an ideal world - what are the frameworks and structures you work within and how do you make such a scheme work?

Aiming high is great, big goals are great - but you need to figure out how it gets done. And that cannot be ignored.

Except it's debatable. Some things people argue should be a state's issue turn out to be constitutional if the federal government took action. Yes, there is the 10th Amendment, but there's also the Commerce Clause and the Supremacy Clause.

You think setting up peoples hopes, only to have it fail it worth it, in the tiny chance that it succeeds. I think you should focus on working with what you have to get things done to help as many as possible.

Which is why I don't think candidates should make political promises but what they believe and what they want to see get done. There might be a time in the future when Bernie's plans come to fruition. None of us might be alive, but what we say can't be done today might be cherished by future generations.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Frankly... thinking on them, Bernie's answers on race worried me. He always pivots to issues of criminal justice and poverty. Yes, it impacts the AA community far more than the white community, but the experience of AA life in America is MORE than being in prison and or poor. The other point I thought was interesting, is that both candidates kind of acted like there is only two races in the America, but only Clinton made reference to Hispanics.

[Shadows]

Honestly I think Clinton does speak in circles, does not connect with people but she is a decent debater IMO - I would give credit where it is due.

I clearly thought this was one of Bernie's better debates & he had a solid win, I'm sure Clinton supporters would think their candidate did better. Overall I am satisfied - To expect him to destroy Clinton on every issue is probably too much! GOP should really learn from the mess they created!

[Ogre Mage]

Hillary and Bernie showed you can have a heated debate which stays focused on the issues without descending into calling people "con man," "liar" and discussions of penis size.  Our party can actually discuss the problems relevant to the people of MI instead of -- in the words of a Jamie Johnson, an Iowa Republican political operative -- "my party is committing suicide on national television."