Watched the first half a bit more, I don't like the continuous attacks on groups such as the Police, pharmaceuticals and the rich. No recgonition that these people are the ones that keep the country running, no recognition of their contribution to society, just continually playing the 'they bully us ' card. There is little discussion on the advancing the economy, on inspiring innovation but mainly discussing how the people are being oppressed or denied rights and policies to help them .

Sanders - Makes the same points over and over again. But a much more effective and natural speaker than Clinton nevertheless. Appeals well to the audience when speaking about his trademark wall street and political corruption. Was a bit waffly when talking about taxing the middle class to fund his healthcare plans, but ended up giving a strong answer.

Clinton - Too Hilary-Clintony, too fake and phony. I keep getting the impression that she says many things to bait for applause and score political points. She seems to be memorising too many of her arguments, memorising who voted for what in what year to help push a point, looking down on her notes all the time doesn't help. Did very well on the debate about affordable care act, portrayed it as a proud final product of previous democrat governments and how she is trying to protect the legacy, and I think it appeals very well to Democratic voters.

I don't like the continuous attacks on groups such as the Police, pharmaceuticals and the rich.

+1. I wouldn't have such a problem with it if they mentioned specific people by name. For example with pharmaceuticals they could have mentioned and attacked Martin Shkreli, but that would defeat the purpose of their rhetoric.

62 people owns as much as half the world's population combined, 3.5 Billion people. Yeah lets pretends that's normal and ethical. We should cut some slack to these poor billionairs. And lets sell 2$ pills for 700+$, coz you know,this yatch ain't gonna buy itself. And we should let all the wall streets golden boys gamble with small people's money, who cares if they lose it, the government is gonna bail them out anyway, and gambling is fun. And most important, we should let the billionairs legaly buy politicians, to insure that the system stays that way.

@jai

I wouldn't have such a problem with it if they mentioned specific people by name.

you are kidding right? it would take months...


Just today, i started a new job, and since i didn't have any mission yet, i was asked to read some stuff about a software called "Readsoft", wich i'll use in upcoming missions. So after i read about how the software works, i went on and read about the company itself. Turns out they were bought buy another company last year, called "Lexmark". So i went ahead and read the tender offer Lexmark issued on their website, when they disclosed that they made an offer to buy Readsoft. I read that:

This tender offer for the shares of ReadSoft demonstrates the consistent execution of Lexmark's capital allocation framework, which is to pursue acquisitions that strengthen and support the growth of Lexmark solutions capabilities, while returning more than 50 percent of free cash flow to shareholders, on average, through quarterly dividends and share repurchases. Since the first quarter of 2011, Lexmark has returned to shareholders $733 million in the form of dividends and share repurchases.

now lets go to wikipedia to see what it says about Lexmark:

- In September 2014, Lexmark acquired Stockholm, Sweden-based ReadSoft for $251 Million

- In May 2015, Lexmark announced that it had acquired Kofax for roughly $1 Billion

- In December 2015, Lexmark announced that they were losing $5,2 Million dollars in the 3rd trimester of 2015, and would have to lay off 500 people in the next 18 months. After hiring Goldman Sachs in October to "Explore Strategic Options"

Yeah...cut them some slack my ass

sources:
- http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jan/18/richest-62-billionaires-wealthy-half-world-population-combined
- http://newsroom.lexmark.com/2014-05-06-Lexmark-commences-tender-offer-for-all-outstanding-shares-of-ReadSoft
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexmark
- https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexmark
- http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-23/lexmark-hires-goldman-sachs-to-explore-strategic-alternatives

Edited 1/18/2016 18:40:42

I did not watch the debate but when I do I am guessing it will Bernie hiding in his corner supporting Clinton ( and getting murdered on gun control ) and Clinton saying Republicans are bad all night, and Martin constantly stealing crowd attention stunts from Christie

when I do I am guessing it will Bernie hiding in his corner supporting Clinton

You couldn't be more wrong. Bernie took the gloves off last night

Sanders vs Trump!

I find that of the current presidential candidates, none are EXACTLY what we need... It's all about damage control now, imo. Who will be able to hurt the country the least, and fix the country the most. I dont think heavy change is a good idea at the moment.

Sad thing is, I don't really agree with any candidate, but I seem to share the most with Hillary. But I hate Hillary because she's Hillary.

I'd probably vote for someone who shared Hillary's views but wasn't Hillary.

And lets sell 2$ pills for 700+$, coz you know,this yatch ain't gonna buy itself.

Hitchslap this is exactly my point though. If all they do is rail against Pharmaceutical companies and businesses without concrete examples, names, and figures then its just empty rhetoric!! That's why I said they shouldn't treat these institutions as nameless and faceless figures. Every person on wall street isn't bad. Every person who works for a pharmaceutical company isn't satan incarnate. Many of the people who work for pharmaceutical companies are scientists trying to make a difference. They aren't the ones controlling the price of the drugs. I find Bernie and Hillary's attempt to demonize a whole sector of the economy simply because they are employed by bad people to be utterly disgraceful.

Also the pills probably don't cost $2 to make if you include R&D, FDA regulations to bring it to market, costs for clinical trials, and salaries of scientists who helped to make it along the way (not to mention the actual manufacturer costs for producing the product).

Edited 1/18/2016 19:37:25

Every person on wall street isn't bad. Every person who works for a pharmaceutical company isn't satan incarnate.

This is not what they say though, they specifically target irresponsible greedy billionairs who think they are above the law, and in fact onws the law, since as Bernie says, they own congress by bribing every politicians, left and right.

Also the pills probably don't cost $2

yeah... it cost 13.5$
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2015/09/21/ceo-of-company-that-raised-the-price-of-old-pill-hundreds-of-dollars-overnight-calls-journalist-a-moron-for-asking-why/

I hope this fucker end up in jail

Edited 1/18/2016 19:48:14

including Clinton and many other democrats

This is not what they say though, they specifically target irresponsible greedy billionairs who think they are above the law, and in fact onws the law, since as Bernie says, they own congress by bribing every politicians, left and right.

But hitchslap they don't target any pharmaceutical company or executive BY NAME!! This is key otherwise they are blaming the ENTIRE pharmaceutical industry, and thus every person who works for them. This is abject hate-mongering by the Democrats to rally their base and scapegoat and entire sector of the economy for societal problems. Instead of offering solutions they want to offer punishment.

I hope this fucker end up in jail

Yeah his name is Martin Shkreli. And Bernie and Hillary didn't mention his name once even though he is perfect example of corruption and crony capitalism in the pharmaceutical industry. Not every pharmaceutical executive is a dirt bag who wants to steal people's money. Too act like that is true is not only abject falsification its disingenuous.

Edited 1/18/2016 19:51:01

including Clinton and many other democrats

of course, "left and right"
And Bernie called out Hillary on that yesterday

I am just waiting for Clinton to say Carson is racist lol

Edited 1/18/2016 19:51:04

At least Rubio is not married to a serial rapist (unlike Killary Klinton).

This is key otherwise they are blaming the ENTIRE pharmaceutical industry, and thus every person who works for them.

No, i just explained who they were targetting. You don't need names if you specifically talk about the billionairs without morals. Your statement about "every person in the industry" is nonsense. But you thinking that actually kinda "prove" your point, since probably other are thinking like you

Fucker didn't even release the Wu Tang Album he bought.

No, i just explained who they were targetting. You don't need names if you specifically talk about the billionairs without morals.

No you didn't explain who they were targeting because they (Bernie, Hillary, and O'Malley) didn't explain who they were targeting. You can't just say "billionaires without morals"!! You can't use blanket statements especially when it comes to defining vague terms like morality. In what alternate universe is "billionaires without morals" specific?? There are 1645 billionaires in the world? Are all included in your list of billionaires without morals?? My guess is yes because you hate everyone and everything that stinks of making more than $250,000 a year right?

They said the pharmaceutical industry multiple times, they said wall street multiple times, they said police multiple times..all without an ACTUAL NAME. Without attaching any names to these phrases they are in essence blaming the entire industries and professions without giving credit to the fact there are many many people on the right side of law and morality when it comes to banking, pharmacy, and policing.

You're defense of socialism is brave but blatant.

It is just a flat lie to say that they are targeting all the people working in the industry, and you know it. For some reason you think that this strawman is going to fool people. And you are probably right. Just not me. And thx for the adhominem, another proof that you can't have a rational discussion.

and just to make a final point, you don't need ACTUAL NAME, when you target them by their ACTUAL ACTIONS. You failing to understand that is sad, really

Edited 1/18/2016 20:20:41

- reckless speculation
- bribing of politicians
- enflating drugs prices

just to quote a few they have mentionned, since i can see you coming from a mile away