The 3 Best and Worst Moments of the First Democratic Debate
Is there hope for liberty lovers among the Democrats?
With Donald Trump and Ben Carson dominating the GOP race with talk of giant walls and end of days, the chances of a libertarian insurgency are looking slimmer by the hour. But is there hope for liberty lovers among the Democrats?
Watch Reason TV's video above, The 3 Best and Worst Moments of The First Democratic Debate, to find out.
Sure, they're known as big spenders with an affinity for one-size-fits-all regulation and a borderline creepy reverence for the power of the federal government, but they say they're hands off on social issues and sometimes even call themselves civil libertarians. That has the word "libertarian" in it, right?
We watched the first Democratic Presidential debate with wide eyes and open minds and picked out the best and the worst moments of the night. These are the 3 Best and 3 Worst Moments of the first Democratic Presidential Debate.
Third Best Moment: Cannabis Legalization
Anderson Cooper: "Some of the candidates have tried marijuana, as have pretty much probably everybody in this room."
Just as quickly as public opinion on pot has shifted, these politicians have suddenly mellowed to the idea. Some of them have even admitted to inhaling. And Bernie Sanders thinks we're ruining too many young people's lives just for feeling the burn.
But one candidate seemed a bit confused. Hillary doesn't like the mass incarceration aspect, but she also won't advocate for an end to federal prohibition. Also, we need more research on cannabis—but we also need more evidence before we ditch the federal regulations that all but ban research on cannabis, which even ardent drug warriors are beginning to oppose.
Third Worst Moment: "Common Sense" Gun Control
Bernie Sanders: "The views on gun control in rural states are different than in urban states, whether we like it or not."
On the flip side was the Dems' almost uniformly uninformed take on violent crime and gun control. Bernie Sanders tip-toed his way around his un-Democratic past, pointing to his support for a federal assault weapons ban (probably because it worked so well last time). Hillary thinks it's fine to make responsible dealers liable for any crimes customers may commit with guns they sold legally. And Martin O'Malley touted the fantastic record of his gun safety legislation in Maryland in solving the problem of gun violence. Why, just take a look at Baltimore!
Only one candidate, Jim Webb, recognized that DC politicians aren't alone in their desire or their right to bear arms for self-protection. Echoing a Rand Paul argument, he pointed out the uncomfortable fact that many gun warriors inside the Beltway bubble employ armed guards for their own families' protection.
Second Best Moment: Foreign Interventionism
Bernie Sanders: "You're talking about a quagmire in a quagmire."
Most of the candidates didn't hold back from criticizing the interventionist foreign policy that defined the Bush administration and continued through the Obama years. Sanders criticized the "quagmire in a quagmire" in Syria and both Sanders and Martin O'Malley got after Hillary for wanting a no-fly zone there, which could lead to the type of mission creep last seen in another of Hillary's greatest foreign policy disasters, the Libyan intervention.
As for Hillary, she thinks we just have to accept a certain level of risk.
Second Worst Moment: What Classified Emails?
Hillary Clinton: "I'm as transparent as I know to be."
Clinton's fellow candidates weren't shy about criticizing her role in botched Middle East foreign policy initiatives, but even Bernie Sanders was quick to jump to her defense when the topic turned to her email problems.
The crowd may have loved her unapologetic posture, but the standing ovation they delivered doesn't change the fact that Clinton is still under federal investigation for compromising classified information while serving as Secretary of State. There's nothing partisan about it.
The Best Moment: Edward Snowden, Whistleblower
Unlike Hillary Clinton, Edward Snowden intentionally made classified information public as a whistleblower calling attention to the unconstitutional surveillance of the NSA. A rousing defense of Snowden and civil liberties from Sanders and Lincoln Chaffee provided the night's best moments.
But once again, Clinton found herself on the wrong side of the debate, insisting that Snowden should return to "face the music"—or, put another way, to face charges under the notoriously draconian Espionage Act—and defending nearly every obfuscation and expansion in federal voyeurism since the Patriot Act.
The Worst Moment: What National Debt?
The candidates never once mentioned the federal debt and seemed to believe that soaking the rich for tax money will fund all of their wildest dreams. From "free" college to "free" medical care to paid parental leave to indefinite energy and pension spending, the parade of ill-conceived federal initiatives trotted out by the candidates provided the worst moments of the night.
What do you think were the best and worst moments of the debate? Tell us in the comments. Scroll down for downloadable links. And don't forget to subscribe to Reason TV's YouTube channel for notifications when new material goes lives.
Produced by Zach Weissmueller and Justin Monticello. Music by Jason Shaw. Approximately 5:30 minutes.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
The only one of these people who doesn't make me vomit is Bernie Sanders. I disagree with him on economics - strongly - but unlike most of these people he ADMITS to being a socialist, which he is. He also appears to be better on matters of war and peace than the vast majority of politicians today. He is no Ron Paul, to be sure, but he is better than most. I also think he is sincere in his beliefs. I can respect someone I disagree with if that person is sincere. Would I vote for him? No. But at least he doesn't make me want to vomit.
I agree with you. Sanders is terrible on a lot of issues but he is much more straightforward than most pols and is pretty good on social issues and the warfare state.
An honest slaver is still a slaver. Gas up your woodchippers, people.
I said I would never vote for him. But that doesn't mean that, if he were my next door neighbor, I couldn't at least shake his hand and live in peace. To call anyone who disagrees with you a "slaver" is needless hyperbole and decreases the likelihood of building bridges that could move society in the right direction. There is a difference between the terms "The Enemy" and "The Opposition". I would call the vast majority of politicians "The Enemy". I would call Sanders "The Opposition".
Oh, my bad. I thought it'd be dangerous to give the world's most powerful military to someone who advocates seizing private property at gunpoint, but you're right that it's totally just equivalent to disagreeing with my neighbor. I've seen the light now.
I LOLed at that one so hard I almost shat myself.
If you almost shat yourself I would suggest you make an appointment with a gastroenterologist.
Did you miss the part where I said I would never vote for him?
Just stop already. Your still pushing your foot in the wrong direction.
Needless? Perhaps... Hyperbole? Not really, the shoe fits.
I also think he is sincere in his beliefs.
So was Iossef Vissarionovich Jughashvili.
-jcr
Speaking of Yalta, you know who else was sincere in his beliefs?
Saint Francis?
Francis the Talking Mule?
No. I have it on good authority Francis was not sincere. Mr. Ed told me.
Yoda?
Jar Jar Binks?
Godwin?
Penn, is that you?
No, I am not Penn. Though I do like the show Bullsh!t.
I also think he is sincere in his beliefs.
Hitler, on the other hand, was really a big fan of Jews and Gypsies? NOT "sincere in his beliefs"?
This is a bizarre statement. Charles Manson seems pretty sincere, you like him too? WTF difference does the sincerity of a monster matter? Bernie Sanders would enslave the world to "save" it. He is a piece of shit slaver, no matter how fucking sincere his belief that he can command hundreds of millions of individuals.
If I'd never seen Paul, I might agree on Sanders' sincerity, but it would only be because the standard of comparison for sincerity in politics is so fuckinass low. And with our statesmen behaving as they do all the time, one comes to fail to recognise their nigh total lack of sincerity for what it is, permitting one to imagine briefly that there is some or other bit of sincerity still in there. Then I saw Paul, and it was downright shocking. It was hard to even pay any attention to anything he actually said, as the appearance of a sincere politician was so over-the-top it blanked out everything else. It put everything else in perspective and so I might rate Sanders at 20% sincere, versus the almost universal standard of zero or negative sincerity amongst most others. Ron Paul, in contrast, is even more sincere than most oppressed workers or other commoners, who as a rule are far more sincere than the great statesmen.
Webb seems the least scary to me.... I mean if there are any moderates in the democratic Party he probably is in that group....
Anyone who identifies as a socialist after the horrors of socialism have been vividly demonstrated over the course of the 20th century deserves to be put up against a wall and shot.
Sorry, but I'm not going to submit to slavery, and I'm not going to entertain the delusions of those who think they can get it right this time.
He's a bad guy. He's stupid. He doesn't understand the first thing about economics. He thinks your average guy goes home from work and whacks off to a rape fantasy. He wants to go after bankers and thinks banks shouldn't be bailed out. The fact he is unaware banks aren't bailed out, depositors are, is nearly criminal for someone who has a good chance at being President.
He's way too old to be President, as is Hillary. Neither of them have the energy or drive necessary to hold that job. Pure ego is not enough.
"But is there hope for liberty lovers among the Democrats?"
No, no there's not. Just as there's not among the Republicans.
Nick doesn't seem to think so. Here's his tweet: "As a small 'l' libertarian, I've gotta say that I find as much or more to agree with during #demdebate as during @gop ones. What about you?"
Hey look, I'm all about bashing the GOP. But economic liberty is personally more important to me than gay marriage and abortions. Not sure how a libertarian can say what Nick said with a straight face.
Then again, maybe he was just punking us.
Social Issues are far more important to me. They also have a greater impact on people's happiness imo. If you can't do things you want to do, that is very harmful to one's personal well being. On the other hand having to jump through hoops or having to pay a cost (taxes for example) to do things someone wants to do has far less impact on someone happiness, its more of an annoyance. Money beyond on poverty level does not have a large effect on most people's happiness.
I think being forced to buy things and the government stealing my money has a pretty damn big effect on my happiness.
But hey, I'm willing to agree to disagree on this and realize people have different preferences.
Then you should be bending over backwards to keep the net-puritan Democrats from getting into office and putting "yes-means-yes" (which is actually yes-means-no) into a law applying to all of us.
Thinking the God Dammed Social Justice Warriors will leave us alone to do what we please, how fucking quaint.
I wish I could remember the exact quote, but I read something once to the effect that economic freedom, understood as property rights, is the most important of all freedoms because it underpins everything else. If your right to own property and dispose of it as you see fit is infringed, that limits your ability to exercise any other rights. Conversely, having unfettered property rights allows a person to avoid government interference in other rights.
Governments tax things to control them, and use excessive taxation to limit activities they can't outright ban. You see this frequently in the context of gun ownership. States that can't just outright ban guns will impose fees and taxes on the permit process, sales, etc. to make gun purchasing and ownership so onerous that most people can't afford to do it.
This.
Just look at how Operation Chokepoint has been used to go at otherwise legal activities and force them out of business.
A right to property and a property in our rights.
Also, the notion that any leftist - people who fundamentally view all human activity as economic activity - can somehow be trusted on 'social' issues is laughably naive or worse.
Yes, having the gov't take half of what I earn is far less important than not being able to smoke weed. I mean it's only a little slavery.
So many gay guys are now going to be happy because they get to hire a lawyer when they try to split up. You nailed it.
Whereas having your business go under due to regulations is simply an annoyance.
One of the good Twitter responses:
"@nickgillespie which part do you find freeing? The federally mandated healthcare, college, vacation, pay, banking, or energy?"
Look, we may not like this, but social issues are more important to most people. The psychological impact of some social issues has a much stronger effect than bringing home a little less in the paycheck. Most economic issues have a small incremental perceptible effect, while social issues can have a huge visible impact. Just look at how people vote. Most people vote on social issues, unless there is a significant economic downturn the year before the election.
Michael Cloud talked about "Political Cross-Dressing" on a number of occasions. One thing libertarians can do is talk about economic issues and how they relate to social issues. One can also talk about social issues in such a way that it is clear how they impact economic issues.
But there is hope for liberty lovers amongst the authoritarian metrofascist tyrannarchs of the people.
So many of their assertions needed to be challenged and for the most part they weren't.
It's been rough and rocky travelin'
But I'm finally standing upright on the ground
After takin' several readings I'm surprised
To find my mind's still fairly sound
I guess Nashville was the roughest
But I know I've said the same about them all
We've received our education
In the cities of the nation, me and ....
The best moments were my wife (who was pretty buzzed from the Debate Drinking Game) screaming and throwing things at the TV.
Second best was Chaffee whining, "But I was new, my daddy just died!" in defending one of his votes.
Third best was Webb channeling Danny Chung.
Oh, and I liked the booing when the moderator pointed out the Clinton was filthy rich herself.
Comes from a modest means family. She and her husband spend their entire working lives, pretty much, working in public service. Now has a $600 million net worth.
Not possible to do. Ethically, at any rate.
No one called her on it.
Strange you didn't mention that libertarians cal for respect and reliance on science, so there were a number of "best moments" from nearly all of the candidates regarding science.
When asked what is the greatest national threat, two of them (O'Malley and Sanders) told us all that science tells us it may well be climate change.
Oh that's right, libertarians don't trust science. Forgot.
Where did you get your physical sciences doctorate?
Pretty sure the runaway spending will cause more damage long before the temperature becomes a problem (if it ever does).
There's 'science' and there's 'shit we'll call science so no one will be allowed to question it'
How many times have they interviewed 50 people and then based federal policies on the results?
Oh, did you see the article last week where the climate scientist found an error in the model that cuts out 80-90% of warming? Maybe your website didn't think it was important.
Nope, didn't see it. You probably didn't, either or you would have put a link to such a ridiculous statement.
But did you see that Japan Meteorological Agency just said that September 2015 was the warmest such month on record? I'll put a link
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/t.....p_wld.html
And it's all but certain 2015 will be the warmest year on record. The first 9 months are exactly that. But thanks for affirming my statement that libertarians run away from science.
Oh, you are speaking about David Evans, I guess. First place, he isn't a climate scientist, he is an electrical engineer. Funny, he is even more of a doom and gloom guy than climate scientists. He says temps will stabilize until 2017 (wrong, it's still going up) AND it will then start dropping until we have an ice age in 2030. Yikes. Hold that thought.
http://www.perthnow.com.au/new.....014d0519c6
"A former climate modeller for the Government's Australian Greenhouse Office, with six degrees in applied mathematics, Dr Evans has unpacked the architecture of the basic climate model which underpins all climate science."
The first problem is in the cleaning of the data, and the subsequent unwillingness of those who profess AGW to share the raw, unadjusted temperature records so that they may be tested by others.
In my area of data analysis, the first thing I do after publishing is duck for cover because the standard process is for everyone else to try to replicate. Fortunately my work has stood up well.
All the unadjusted temperature records are shared, as well as the adjustment reasoning. I'm sure you don't believe that, so I will let fellow skeptic Judith Curry tell you how off base you are, just like Watts was:
"In summary, it is possible to look through 40,000 stations and select those that the algorithm has warmed; and, it's possible to ignore those that the algorithm has cooled. As the spatial maps show it is also possible to select entire continents where the algorithm has warmed the record; and, it's possible to focus on other continents were the opposite is the case. Globally however, the effect of adjustments is minor. It's minor because on average the biases that require adjustments mostly cancel each other out."
http://judithcurry.com/2015/02.....ture-data/
Here, from FactCheck
"The raw, unadjusted data from these stations is available from many sources, including the international collaboration known as the Global Historical Climatology Network and others."
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/.....ture-data/
I know that doesn't fit the global conspiracy theory, but even Curry doesn't subscribe to that.
DERRRRPPPPP!!!11!!!!!!
It is shocking to me how few libertarians seem to understand that economic liberty is the lynch pin to any liberty at all. The value judgments made to produce and consume without Force is the bedrock of freedom. The fact that I pay over 50% of labor in taxes, regulated transactions, and debasement is a little more than an "annoyance". Especially as it appears I'm at 52% with an UP ARROW. Over 50% of my value judgments are nullified by Force, and the Democrats and Republicans aren't done yet. And my wife and I are work-a-day people - we need our jobs to survive. We're not backed by trust funds or big inheritances, and we're shoveling 50%+ of labor to others by Force.
And if it's only an annoyance for most people it's only because of the application of smoke and mirrors to the process. If laid bare before the middle class how much they're getting screwed there'd be some changes. But with the split on FICA (which really comes out of the employee's end of the log for both sides), withholding, escrowed property taxes, sales taxes glopped on top of the bill, etc. And Forced participation in certain markets, the shift of costs in regulated markets, debasement of savings.
Want to see how fiscally conservative the country is? Make everyone remit their federal taxes, including FICA, quarterly. Get rid of the employer auto deduction and you will immediately create a citizenry that is very concerned about how their money is spent.
^This. The average worker has no idea how expensive it is to hire someone.
(Hint: It's a lot more than just their wage.)
YES! I have said this for a long time. If people had to write a quarterly check, there would be a tax revolt in this country.
Debate? What Debate?
The sham-debate on an all-too-obviously biased CAN was merely a showcase for Hillary Clinton to spar with Bernie Sanders as to who would punish producers more for producing and reward loafers more voting to live instead of working to live. In the end, it was becoming a mutual admiration-society of two between the quasi-Marxist Sanders ? a caricature of an old-time, Jewish Communist from New York City ? and the ageing acolyte of the late, Jewish rabble-rouser, Saul Alinsky, Clinton. Meanwhile, despite his protests, the only Democrat on stage who represented anything resembling traditional American ideals and values, Jim Webb, effectively was shut out by the prissy so-called moderator, Anderson Cooper, who even lectured Webb for complaining that he was being given such short shrift.
Perhaps, the most interesting feature of the sham was the inconsiderate, unfair treatment neo-liberals give to each other. Perhaps the most important message was to American Jews of The Right ? Be On Guard! This nation is a declining nation on fire ? a fire set by arsonists of The Left with a vastly disproportionate prominence of Jews as symbolized by Sanders and the ghost of Alinsky.
Anti-Semitism is rising worldwide. Should the question as old as history be asked once again here in these United States of America, "Who did it to us?", what will be the answer?
See "The Jewish Question?" at ...
http://nationonfire.com/category/context/ .
I am not a religious man, but if I was, I might say Hillary could possibly be the anti-christ.
The only thing that gives me pause is that the anti-christ is supposed to have a lot of charisma. That kinda leaves out Hillary. Regardless, her cackle is satanic.
Maybe it was Obama after all? He has loads of telepromted charisma. But, he seems too obvious of a choice and the anti-christ is supposed to be a great deceiver so it shouldn't be so easy to figure out.
Maybe it is Trump????? That would be HUUUUUUGE. Didn't the pope just allude to the need for bigger government, more welfare, and open borders to be good Christians? Is it a coincidence that he completely disagrees with the Trumpster at the same time the Trumpster is going big? I think I am on to something! Where is my mom's bible?
Oh, come on. The anti-christ is a dude. She's maybe the whore of Babylon, if anything.
The worst moment in this article was when I had to click to page 2 for some reason.
Sadly, I think Jim Webb would be a not so bad option for the Democratic nominee (caveat: I really only know him from the debate last night. Maybe he's even worse than Sanders and Clinton, but he seemed to be not so bad last night).
Too bad he has no chance.
Anyone happen to know more about him?
Jim Webb is the least offensive on most issues, but that sort of Democrat is no longer welcome in the post-Obama party.
Loved this line: "...known as big spenders with an affinity for one-size-fits-all regulation and a borderline creepy reverence for the power of the federal government"
I would love to hear the author describe Republicans, which I am one.
Both parties suck big dick, both are for big government. Fuck them both, nothing good about either of them, sure they may sound libertarian in sound bites or debates but watch until their elected. They'll find millions of ways to rail.
Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
This is wha- I do...... ?????? http://www.buzznews99.com
Democrats and most of the GOP think that they can continue to make promises that can't be kept or paid for (and I believe most of them know it). That is the worst aspect of this election.
Democrats and most of the GOP think that they can continue to make promises that can't be kept or paid for (and I believe most of them know it). That is the worst aspect of this election.