SEMANTICS AND PRAGMATICS IN POLITICAL DEBATES AT THE QUESTION/ANSWER INTERFACE
Item Type Electronic Thesis; text
Authors Labus, Mary
Citation Labus, Mary. (2020). SEMANTICS AND PRAGMATICS IN POLITICAL DEBATES AT THE QUESTION/ANSWER INTERFACE (Bachelor's thesis, University of Arizona, Tucson, USA).
Publisher The University of Arizona.
Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author.
Download date 26/09/2021 08:00:21
Item License http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/
Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/651373
SEMANTICS AND PRAGMATICS IN POLITICAL DEBATES AT THE
QUESTION/ANSWER INTERFACE
By
Mary Grace Labus
______
A Thesis Submitted to The Honors College
In Partial Fulfillment of the Bachelors degree With Honors in
Linguistics
THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA
M a y 2 0 2 0
Approved by:
______Dr. Robert Henderson Department of Linguistics Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 2
Abstract
The debates held during the Democratic Presidential Primary provided a rare opportunity to study the question/answer interface that arises in semi-adversarial discourse. These public events are held to help voters decide between similar candidates based on what are assumed to be accurate and representative answers to often confrontational questions posed by the moderators and the other candidates. However, this paper finds that the majority of responses by the three candidates studied were partial answers, with rare full answers in response to direct moderator questions, not questions posed by other candidates. This analysis is based on a database that codes Senator Sanders‘, Senator Warrens‘, and Mayor Buttigieg‘s responses over the June through February debates by the type of question and whether their responses was a non, partial, or full answer. Further study could enhance this analysis by considering the difficulty of the questions asked and the range of partiality in the answers.
Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 3
Introduction
Crudely, semantics is the meaning behind spoken utterances. More specifically, semantics splits into two subsections, formal and informal. Formal semantics uses logic to describe meaning and breaks down all the utterances into the simplest combination of logical symbols. Informal semantics includes things like discourse analysis and does not break the utterances down into different logics like formal semantics. Pragmatics is the study of semantics in various contexts. Discourse analysis tends to focus more on pragmatics because of this, since utterances change meaning based on the situation. Think about someone asking, ―What are you doing?‖ This could take on many different meanings depending on the tone of the speaker and what the listener perceives the speaker‘s tone to be. This question could be innocent, if the speaker left a study partner to take a call and came back to see the partner working on something that they were not working on before. This question could also be used by a parent scolding on of their children for doing something they were not supposed to. Thus, when looking at adversarial contexts, the pragmatics must be considered because the semantics change is the speakers are pitted against each other. Debates on policy and laws happen every day, but this paper will focus on the debates that happened during the 2020 Democratic Presidential
Primaries. The debates that were filmed by national news stations were taken into consideration.
Here, the debates will be considered in both a pragmatic and informal semantic context, providing an analysis of the candidate‘s answers to questions asked by the moderators and other candidates.
Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 4
Literature Review
Political debates constitute a unique situation that is not present in everyday speech. They create adversarial conditions between the candidates while also inducing sympathy among the general public. In addition to these conditions, debates are often timed for responses to make it
―fairer‖ for the candidates. In everyday speech, people are not given a minute to respond to answer questions, and only 30 seconds to respond and rebut. This time limit affects the ability of the candidates to give comprehensible answers that the general public understands. Discourse analysis provides a way to study the pragmatics of the debates, though the type of discourse analysis chosen would differ from everyday political speech. Understanding how other people have studied discourse analysis in politics is important for debates, even if the discourse itself is different. Being able to compare debate and non-debate discourse is provides a basis for the differences between debates and other discourse.
Eemeren, Garssen, and Bart (2008) collected articles dealing with controversy, debate, consistency, and credibility. Controversy and argumentation are central to debate because many of the questions posed to candidates deal with controversial topics and often lead to argumentation. Argumentation can also lead to less credibility, especially when the candidates attack one another instead of answering the questions. Credibility is important in political debates and crucial in the presidential debates (Eemeren, Garssen, Bart, 2008), since the presidential debates exist to help voters get to know candidates. This is something that is considered in the analysis of the answers provided by the three candidates.
The analysis of the semantics and pragmatics in this paper were initially invented by Craige
Roberts in the questions under discussion (QUD) model. Roberts (2012) looked [last paragraph was past tense, this should be too] at discourse as though it is a game, with the scores organized Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 5 around the questions under discussion. She described discourse as a series of goals and strategies. Furthermore, she assumed that the primary goal is communal inquiry, which she built off of another previous study regarding views on context. This ties into the idea of discourse as a game, because the elements could be said to be the goals, the rules that the speakers must abide by, the certain ―moves‖ that speakers make, and finally the strategies that speakers use to make their ―moves.‖ Roberts (2012) stated two sets of rules, one which pertains specifically to conventions, and another which refers to different maxims. Moves are separated into questions and answers and strategies are the way in which these types of speech are ordered. She further discussed the semantics of questions and built up to a theory of Information Structure (Roberts,
2012). Debates are even more focused on questions and answers than everyday speech, making this theory more applicable in political debates than in everyday speech. Furthermore, there are other constraints that are active during debates that are not present in everyday discourse. Some of these constraints are time allotments, the actual set-up of answering a question (such as having another candidate offer a counter argument and then allowing the initial speaker a timed rebuttal). Yet, all of the rebuttals and counter arguments address the same question first posed by the moderator. However, her model also had some issues when applied to the debates, specifically in the difference between the idea of communal inquiry and the argumentative nature of the debates.
Riester, Brunetti, and De Kuthy (2018) created guidelines for the QUD that Roberts first proposed. They discussed their methodology for creating questions under discussion and analyzing information structure. Information is divided into two parts, background information which is in context and focus information which is to do with answers to questions. The authors tried to clarify the way a listener or reader understood the information structure in received Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 6 linguistics output, e.g. writing or speaking. Their main assumption was that discourse is not linear, but instead hierarchically organized. Riester, Brunetti, and De Kuthy (2018) also tried to establish a universality of information structure categories. They focused on the possible semantic and pragmatic categories rather than on syntax or morphology. They included a number of examples both throughout the paper and in the appendices of how they analyzed the information structure (Riester, Brunetti, and De Kuthy, 2018). These guidelines make the use of
QUD more accessible and are going to be followed throughout this analysis of the 2020 presidential debates. These annotations only apply in English, but as the presidential debates used are in English this has no effect on possible analyses.
Microanalysis is yet another possible analyzation method, though it focuses more on speeches, not debates (Bull, 2003). This makes the focus more on ―ambiguity‖ and ―claptrap.‖
Claptrap has a variety of definitions, but for the purposes of Bull (2003) it refers to empty language. Bull (2003) focused on the politicians wanting to show themselves in the best possible light, but since speeches are not as structured or as adversarial as debates, there would need to be adjustments if this analysis was used to study debates.
Fetzer, Weizman, and Berlin (2015) focused on political discourse in general, such as what affected it and how it changed over time. While similar to Bull‘s study, there was a slightly different analysis completed. Knowledge about what general political discourse looks like and how it is analyzed provides a background as to what is different about the presidential debates.
This article focused more on how the dynamics of politics affect the discourse in form of words and sentences and the functions of those words and sentences (Fetzer, Weizman, Berlin, 2015).
Political discourse is dynamic and is even more so during the debates, when controversial topics are brought up so voters can hear what the candidates think about those topics. In a way, this Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 7 lends itself to the lack of direct answers, because most politicians do not want to answer a question that will push voters away. Answering a question generically or vaguely allows voters to interpret it how they want, which means that the forms of answers become more abstract. This means that politicians are more likely to give non-answers or partial answers in order to avoid certain topics. These topics differ from debate to debate, but for the 2020 primaries, many centered around healthcare.
Fracchiolla (2011) focused on a specific debate from May 2007 regarding the election of the French President. This study studied the politeness of each speaker separately in order to determine if gender had an effect on the discourse. This was a unique opportunity, as the debate was between a man and women in the second round for the first time in history. Fracchiolla
(2011) hypothesized that the reason there were differences between the levels of politeness for both candidates was because of gender norms. Manipulation, control of the debate, and discourse were different because of what was considered normal for each gender. The presidential debate studied in this thesis has male and female candidates. While the differences in their manner are not being analyzed here, the fact that there might be differences in how the candidates answer question or talk about each other is something that needs to be considered, and warrants further study. These differences might be in how candidates answer questions or even which questions they prefer to answer partially, completely, or not at all.
alasi ski (2000) focused on a number of ways deception has been discussed both in discourse and among other social scientists. This book separated the analyses of different aspects of deception into separate chapters. The most relevant chapters discussed intention and evasion, with various other parts addressing deception as an aspect of conversation rather than a single person‘s choice ( alasi ski, 2000). Many debaters try to misrepresent their opponents, whether Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 8 by purposely misunderstanding a spoken utterance to restating something they said. This is where intention becomes important, because debates often surround purposeful misunderstandings of what another candidate stated explicitly. Evasion is important especially in the context of politics where many of the topics may be controversial or may require more knowledge than the general public or the candidate has at their disposal. Candidates avoid answering questions that they find to be incriminating or that would take too long to explain with the knowledge the general public possesses.
Kamil (2017) explored, among other topics, whether, given pragmatic criteria available, the political debates were manipulative or not, and, if manipulation was used, what kind of manipulative acts were used in the debates. A series of further inquiries built off of these first two, which led to the objective of defining the pragmatic criteria needed to study the manipulation in the debates (Kamil, 2017). The restrictions included only looking at the pragmatic aspects of manipulation and that the debates were restricted to a small number of individuals. The focus of the analysis presented in this paper is on three candidates, and thus not all of the manipulation may be clear. Manipulated answers can give the appearance of being full answers or partial answers, even if they are not. Thus, while manipulation is not being directly studied, it has the possibility of coding the answers differently.
Oswald, Herman, and Jacquin (2018) focused on the various linguistic and cognitive factors in argumentation. Debates are by their very nature argumentative. They took different perspectives on argumentation; semantic, explanatory, and descriptive (Oswald, Herman, and
Jacquin, 2018). The descriptive perspective focused on the linguistic resources used by arguers and has a lot of verbal background. The semantic perspective focused on words that might have certain connotations and is an extremely narrow focus. And finally, the explanatory perspective Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 9 looked at how language can fulfill different goals, such as persuasiveness. Oswald, Herman, and
Jacquin (2018) considered these aspects more broadly and did not fully analyze any argumentation. However, each of these perspectives can be applied to answers given by candidates in the debates. There is a possibility that some questions might require an answer given from a specific perspective or that certain candidates might be more liable to give answers from an alternative perspective.
Proctor and Su (2011) focused on how pronominal choice affected the 2008 American presidential debates. Politicians use pronouns to either include themselves in certain actions and groups or exclude themselves from certain actions and groups. This also ties into politeness and asking for the ability to interrupt or answer a question, which hearkens back to Fracchiolla
(2011), though in this case gender was not specifically studied. If politicians want to answer a question, they focus on what their constituents want for the most part, not what they actually think (Proctor and Su, 2011). The idea of looking at pronouns as a way to gauge how a politician wanted to be viewed by voters was an interesting theory and while not part of a question analysis directly, could tie into how candidates answer questions. The use of the 2008 presidential debates creates an interesting comparison that is not present in the 2020 presidential debates, as both parties are not present in a majority of the debates. Thus, more groups have to be addressed by the candidates of each party individually, because there is no true guarantee of having one group vote a certain way.
Similar to Proctor and Su (2011) , Roitman (2014) looked at the use of pronouns in the
French debate from 2012. However, instead of focusing on specifically the inclusion and exclusion for groups she looked only at the pronoun ―I‖ and how it applied to a number of concepts. Her study aimed to look at the relationship between the use of ―I‖ and appearances of Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 10 credibility as well as the argumentations against the other candidate. Her hypothesis was that the candidates create ethos from making an image of their opponent that is specifically counter to them (Roitman, 2014). She further concluded that their speeches were also power exercises, meaning that it was not only an argument between different ideas, but also a way to show strength (Roitman, 2014).The way she coded the answers and the inclusions of the pronoun ―I‖ organized her data in a way that made it clear and easy to follow. This coding will be used as a guide in the sense of providing an example of clear information, even though the study does not directly relate to the analysis of the 2020 presidential debates.
Roitman (2015) looked at the use of refutation in dialogs between two sets of French presidential candidates in the second round of the election. The set-up of the debate provided the candidates with a final chance to argue for their agenda and position and to argue against the other candidate‘s agenda. Here, the researchers focused more specifically on how refutation would be created using negation within these two sets of debates. The researchers also considered the different types of argumentation between the two debates studied (Roitman,
2015), and found differences between the two debates as well as between the candidates themselves. The Sarkozy/Royal debate had a greater number of refutations than the
Chirac/Jospin debate. They also found that the argumentation of each candidate, was focused more on the opposite candidate‘s ideas and how the opposite candidate was wrong than on building upon their own thoughts. Each candidate also used a different amount of refutations, which emphasized different types of argumentation (Roitman, 2015). Candidates talk about how their ideas are the best while dismissing other candidates‘ affirmations, even if the candidates have roughly the same ideas. This can be clearly seen in debates among the same party, especially if two candidates are on the same side of the party (Roitman, 2015). This study gave Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 11 background into how candidates might argue against one another and answer questions in ways that just mention that their opponent is wrong rather than giving a full answer to a question.
These answers might be coded as partial or non-answers, depending on how much of the candidate‘s answers are focused on proving their opponent wrong. Another important point to note here is the answers that are not addressed directly to the other candidates within the same debate, but rather to other candidates or opponents.
Schröter (2013) addressed the use of silence as a function in political discourse. This discourse did not include debates; however, Schröter (2013) did address points that could be extrapolated to debates. For example, the second chapter focused on the intention of the silence, the expectations from both the speaker and the listener about the silence, and the relevance the silence has to the discussion (Schröter, 2013). This kind of meaningful silence can be extrapolated to discussions and debates as leaving time open for someone else to answer, communicating distaste or sarcasm without overtly stating it, and more. Furthermore, sometimes politicians will say they have no comments on certain issues, because it benefits them in not addressing something controversial or covering up something that they would like to hide in order to win the election (Schröter, 2013). Debates are carefully constructed in order to give each politician a certain amount of time to directly answer a question, to argue a point, and to rebut.
Silence is not something that seems helpful given the strict time restrictions on the candidates, thus why the idea of silence as something that has a specific function is emphasized. If a candidate leaves silence or chooses not to answer, they run the risk that someone else will jump in, so the silence most likely had some sort of meaning. The idea of silence also addresses partial and non-answers and why certain questions might be answered in a way that does not address what needs to be discussed. While answers are not necessarily silent, candidates can speak Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 12 without actually having a meaning behind their answer, particularly in the context of questions like ―How will you pay for your healthcare plan?‖
Soleimani and Yeganeh (2016) looked at how different speech acts could affect politicians polling results in the Iran 2013 presidential election. Each of the candidates was studied, looking into three main types of speech act: locutionary, illocutionary, and perlocutionary. Each type was further broken down into how the candidates addressed the population and what they were hoping to get the population to do. These could have been done through emotional, psychological, or credibility appeal (Soleimani & Yeganeh, 2016). This is important to understand because it provides an analysis as to why politicians might be more likely to use one kind of speech act over another, thus changing how they respond to different questions. Candidates‘ answers strive to convince voters that by voting for them, the candidate will enact the change that the voters want to see. This means that politicians appeal to voters to act, but do not necessarily promise to perform certain actions or even how to get to the end result.
Vincze, Bongelli, Riccioni, and Zuczkowski (2016) looked at how a knowledgeable questioner makes the unknowledgeable responder look bad in front of an audience. It focused on the French presidential debates from 2007 and how the candidates forced their opponent to answer questions about which they were ignorant. They discussed how the adversarial context of the debates created a different environment than everyday speech, since all of the statements are aimed at beating the other candidate or candidates (Vincze, Bongelli, Riccioni, and Zuczkowski,
2016). The researchers concluded that questions from more knowledgeable participants in normal everyday conversation are aimed at equalizing the knowledge to both parties, while debates want to emphasize the difference in knowledge of the candidates. They also found that Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 13 the questions addressed by Royal to Sarkozy were not necessarily meant to be seen as questions, but more of as ways to show how ignorant Sarkozy was on a specific topic (Vincze, Bongelli,
Riccioni, and Zuczkowski, 2016). The authors focused on the interplay between questions and answers, but only in a specific context. They did discuss some limitations, such as time allotment and structured arguments that affect candidates‘ answers. Time allotment is incredibly important, because if an answer would require extra explanations in order to fully address a question, candidates would be forced to only address part of the question to stay within the time given to them.
Wilson (2015) addressed the pragmatics of presidential language in various different contexts. He studied six presidents and looked at how they used language from lying to misdirection to ambiguity. Each of the six presidents that he studied had a unique linguistic quality associated with each of them. A pragmatic analysis was completed in order to show that the president in question may not necessarily mean what they said, alluding to misdirection and partial or non-answers given when questioned. Wilson (2015) focused on sociopragmatics, which takes into account the various social factors that interact with linguistic utterances and affect how they are produced. This type of pragmatics allowed Wilson (2015) to speculate about what the presidents hoped to accomplish by using language in a particular way. Misdirection is important in debates, as is ambiguity. Both can make the candidate speaking look good and contradict the other candidates, even without giving a full answer. The analysis Wilson (2015) used is not going to be used to analyze the 2020 presidential debates, but much of what he considers is important for the candidates. Misdirection is something that could be coded as a partial answer, particularly if the candidate answers a question that is part of the overarching question. Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 14
Methods
This research project created an excel spreadsheet database of the questions and answers involving three different candidates in the democratic presidential debates. These candidates were Senator Bernie Sanders, Senator Elizabeth Warren and Mayor Pete Buttigieg. These candidates were chosen because of both how much they talked as well as for comparison across the democratic party. Two candidates leaned politically to the left, while the third was more moderate. This added nuance to the analysis to see how it might change how much each candidate answered the questions posited to them by the moderators.
The written transcripts used to compile the database were taken from a variety of different websites, including the Washington Post, CNN and ABC. Whichever network aired the debate was the network that the transcripts were taken from, with a couple of exceptions where the transcripts could not be found in their unannotated form.1 These transcripts were unannotated and the questions and answers were directly copied from these transcripts into the database.
All of the questions asked of the candidates were included, with a few back and forth sections simplified for analysis. Back and forth references short questions or responses continuously interrupted by another candidate or a moderator. The answers given by the candidates are also referenced in the same way. If the candidate was not answering a question and was instead responding to another candidate, the other candidate‘s remarks are included, along with the other candidate‘s name. However, many of the responses were attributed to multiple candidates or a back and forth commentary, making the analysis of the responses more difficult. There were three choices for the answers candidates could have given and each answer
1 This analysis is performed on the written transcripts of the debates. This means that edits might have been made regarding what each of the candidates and moderators said. The transcripts appear to be unannotated, but there is a possibility that words were deleted or added from the aired debates.
Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 15 was awarded with one. The first category is a full answer where the candidate addressed all parts of a question directed to them or reasonably addressed the candidate, they responded to without going off on a tangent. For an example of a question and answer that would be coded as a full answer below is a question for and from Senator Sanders:
Q: Senator Sanders, Senator Sanders, I'm going to go to you on this. You said on the day
you launched your campaign that voters should focus on what people stand for, not a
candidate's race or age or sexual orientation. Many Democrats are very excited by the
diversity of this field on this stage and on last night's stage and the perspective that
diversity brings to this contest and to these issues.(Interrupt) Are you telling Democratic
voters that diversity shouldn't matter when they make this decision?
A: No, absolutely not. Unlike the Republican Party, we encourage diversity, we believe
in diversity. That's what America is about. But in addition to diversity, in terms of having
more women, more people from the LGBT community, we also have to do something
else. And that is, we have to ask ourselves a simple question, in that how come today the
worker in the middle of our economy is making no more money than he or she made 45
years ago, and that in the last 30 years, the top 1 percent has seen a $21 trillion increase
in their wealth? We need a party that is diverse, but we need a party that has the guts to
stand up to the powerful special interests who have so much power over the economic
and political life of this country.
In this answer, Senator Sanders addresses the exact question that he is asked, where he directly says that diversity should be taken into account. He also does not really go off on Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 16 tangents and addresses almost the entirety of his statement to the answer and idea behind the question. Hence this questions and answer would be classified as a full answer.
The second category was partial, where the candidate answered either a sub question or part of the question posited to them. If the candidate responded and it was scored as partial the candidate did not reasonably address all that they were responding to or went off on a partial tangent. For an example of a question and answer that would be coded as a partial answer below is a question for and from Senator Sanders:
Q: Senator Sanders -- Senator Sanders, you don't think cash payments are the best way to
address this issue, but according to a new Gallup poll, 73 percent of African-Americans
are in favor of cash payments to black Americans who are descendants of slaves. How do
you respond to them?
A: Well, I respond to that by saying that I am supportive of Jim Clyburn's legislation,
which is called 10-20-30. And what that understands is that as a result of slavery, and
segregation, and the institutional racism we see now in health care, in education, in
financial services, we are going to have to focus big time on rebuilding distressed
communities in America, including African- American communities. In terms of
education, I also have a plan. It's called the Thurgood Marshall Plan. And it would focus
on ending the growth of segregated schools in America. It would triple funding for Title I
schools. It would make sure that teachers in this country earned at least $60,000 a year.
This answer is considered partial because Senator Sanders is answering a question that is a part of the question he is asked. This hearkens back to the work of Roberts with a kind of hierarchy of questions. Senator Sanders never directly states how he responds to the African Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 17
American voters, nor does he support why his choice is to not give cash payments. Instead he addresses the underlying issues that the question is hinting at. The partial answers had a range of completeness, from barely partial answers to almost full answers missing some key component.
This was not taken into account and each of these answers was coded as only partial. This might be something to study further in future analyses.
The last category was a nonanswers, where the candidates did not respond to the question asked at all or did not address their rebuttal appropriately. These also sometimes included attacks on other candidates or politicians. There is a possibility that some of the questions were misheard or that the candidate misinterpreted the moderator. For an example of a question and answer that would be coded as a non-answer below is a question for and from Senator Sanders:
Q: My question to you is, will taxes go up for the middle class in a Sanders
administration? And if so, how do you sell that to voters?
A: Well, you're quite right. We have a new vision for America. And at a time when we
have three people in this country owning more wealth than the bottom half of America,
while 500,000 people are sleeping out on the streets today, we think it is time for change,
real change. And by that, I mean that health care in my view is a human right. And we
have got to pass a Medicare for all, single-payer system. Under that system, by the way,
vast majority of the people in this country will be paying significantly less for health care
than they are right now. I believe that education is the future for this country. And that is
why I believe that we must make public colleges and universities tuition-free and
eliminate student debt. And we do that by placing a tax on Wall Street. Every proposal
that I have brought forth is fully paid for. Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 18
This is coded as a non-answer because Senator Sanders never addresses the question about taxes going up for the middle class. The first sentence is not a real answer to the question, even if it implies an answer. Implications are still considered partial, or, in the case of this one, non-answers. In addition, Senator Sanders did not talk about convincing voters, which would address the second question and instead just gives more information on his plans and platform.
The original expectation was that a majority of the answers given would be non or partial answers, with partial answers holding a majority for the candidates as a whole as well as for each of the three individually. Very few, if any full answers were expected because of the natures of the debates and the time limits the candidates were under.2 While each of the answers was categorized into one of the three main categories other codes were also introduced to make analysis easier. These included if the answer was for a direct question, in response to another candidate, included an argument or attack, or happened to be interrupted. Unlike the three main codes of partial, full, or nonanswers, the ones for direct answers, responses, interruptions, and arguments could be coded simultaneously with each other. Direct questions were the easiest to code, because they only required looking at the question and whether or not the candidate answered the question. Examples of direct questions can be seen above. Responses were more difficult, because the candidate could either be responding to another candidate that had derailed the conversation, or the candidate could be responding to a question asked of another candidate.
What the candidate responded to is also included in the database, though the possibility that the response was to more than what is included is possible. Below is an example of a response.
Mayor Buttigieg is responding to Senator Warren on the topic of healthcare. He was previously asked a direct question, and this is continuing along the same idea.
2 The database for each candidate will be included in an appendix Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 19
Senator Warren: … And when we do that, we have enough money to provide health care
for all our people. Yes, we build on the Affordable Care Act, but where we end up is we
offer health care to all of our people. And we can offer it at no cost or low cost to all of
them.
Mayor Buttigieg: It's just not true that the plan I'm proposing is small. We've got to move
past a Washington mentality that suggests that the bigness of plans only consists of how
many trillions of dollars they put through the Treasury, that the boldness of a plan only
consists of how many Americans it can alienate. This would be a game-changer. This
would be the biggest thing we've done to American health care in a half-century. Let's
measure the effects of our plans based on what they would do in our everyday lives. …
Senator Warren is responding to an initial answer by Mayor Buttigieg, who is providing a rebuttal against what she said, hence making this a response. This response by Mayor Buttigieg is also coded as a partial response, because while he is not answering a direct question, he does not address all the concerns and statements made by Senator Warren.
Arguments/attacks were combined with responses and direct answers to show possible points the candidates were uneasy about. In addition, these brought up the adversarial interactions between the candidates. Here, Mayor Buttigieg and Senator Sanders are exchanging comments where Mayor Buttigieg was attacking Senator Sanders healthcare plan.
Sanders: No, I think -- Tom, I think she was talking about my plan, not yours.
Buttigieg: I think we were talking about math, and it doesn't take two hours to do the
math. Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 20
S: No, no, well, let's talk about math.
B: Because let's talk about what it adds up to.
S: Let's talk about math.
B: Let's talk about math, indeed. OK, so here's the math...
S: If we do nothing is what...
B: No, here's the math.
Nothing of substance is said here, and it continues in this vein for a significant amount of time.
This is also coded as nonanswers for both Mayor Buttigieg and Senator Sanders, as neither of them are addressing a question or responding to a statement. This is a good example for interrupted speech as well. Interruptions were included because they emphasized both the time limits of the debates and the interactions of the candidates.
Each of the three candidates had a significant amount of questions asked of them directly as well as a greater number of responses to other candidates‘ statements. The crosstalk, such as the example above, was included, but most was considered non answered questions. In addition, it was labelled as crosstalk in the notes for the questions to ensure that it had the appropriate level of analysis.
Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 21
Analysis
The original hypothesis that a majority of the answers would be partial or nonanswers proved to be true. While each of the candidates answered different questions and had different speech patterns, all three of the candidates studied mostly gave partial answers. One candidate provided more full answers than nonanswers, while the other two provided more nonanswers than full answers. An average of approximately 54% of the answers given by the candidates were partial answers, compared to then 24% average for nonanswers and the 22% of full answers.
This would indicate that the candidates mostly provide partial answers, with both nonanswers and full answers taking up the other half.
Senator Sanders had a few questions that he misheard, which led to nonanswers, as he did not have all of the information the question requested. These were still included. He also had a habit of directing questions towards ones he was able to and wanted to answer, avoiding more sensitive topics being asked of him directly. He also liked to divert answers of questions to similar, related questions or make his responses about a portion of the answer based on the candidate he was responding to. Many of his questions were organized by topic, but that is the same for the other two candidates, as the moderators separated portions of the questions to each of the important topics. Out of the full answers Senator Sanders gave, a majority of them were to direct questions, with 81% of them being to direct questions. His full answers to responses typically came after a previous direct question, which enabled him to tie it back to his original statement. This provided him with more to draw on, leading to a full answer as a response or rebuttal.
Senator Warren in particular avoided questions regarding payment for her healthcare plan as well as her green energy plan. Again, these questions are complicated and hard to fully answer Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 22 given the time limits the candidates are given, but Senator Warren would try to at least partially answer these questions. Senator Warren also had a balanced amount of full answers that were responses and direct. Since there is overlap, as in the case described above regarding ending questions, Senator Warren answered the same number of direct questions as she responded to other candidates with full answers. However, when pushed for a full answer, Senator Warren tended to fall into a habit of giving less and less partial answers. There are a few exceptions to this, where it is possible she misunderstood the question, but she typically would not give a full answer when pushed further. However, the actual degree of partialness was not recorded, so it is not known for certain if the degree of fullness of her answers actually decreased for those she was asked to elaborate on.
Mayor Buttigieg had the most full answers out of the three candidates, both percentage wise, and number wise. He, similarly to Senator Warren, had an equal amount of full answers to direct questions and statements by other candidates. He also tended to avoid questions about healthcare, by far having most of the answers be partial or nonanswers. However, his nonanswers spanned a variety of topics, from racial issues to what needed to be handled first for the country if he was elected. Some of these were probably in order to remain more neutral and not alienate the public on either side, but sometimes he just did not answer the questions. Unlike
Senator Sanders and Senator Warren, Mayor Buttigieg did not seem to mishear questions, though it is possible all three candidates misunderstood questions. This ties into trying to answer difficult questions with responses, latching onto to one thing the previous candidate said rather than responding to the entirety of their statement.
Mayor Buttigieg received the most direct questions, e.g. questions that were directed specifically at him, at 57%. Senator Sanders had the least at 48% yet spoke more often than Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 23
Mayor Buttigieg. Senator Warren had the most rebuttals, e.g. answering questions directed at another candidate or addressing something another candidate said, at 56% while both Senator
Sanders and Mayor Buttigieg were more even at about 53% each. There was some overlap with answers, especially if the candidate answered a question posited to everyone on the stage the same way, given that they were responding to a direct question, but depending on where the candidates were when they answered, they could also address what was happening in other candidates‘ answers. These mostly occurred with final questions though closing and opening statements were excluded.
Each candidate answered questions differently and tended to respond to certain questions more with a certain type of answer (partial, non, or full) than others. All three candidates avoided tax and economy questions, answering majorly with partial answers and a few nonanswers. None of them gave a full answer in response to a question about taxes. Along with taxes, a big point brought up often was healthcare. Here the candidates were slightly better with a few full answers among the majorly partial and nonanswers. This is most likely due to the time constraints inherent to the debates, and the inability to fully articulate plans understandable to the public.
As a whole, Mayor Buttigieg provided the least nonanswers, only 14%, while Senator
Sanders provided the most at 32%. Percentages were used because the number of questions asked of each candidate differed, with Senator Sanders being asked and responding to the most questions. Mayor Buttigieg also gave the most partial answers at 57%, while Senator Sanders gave the least at 47%. Mayor Buttigieg had the most full answers at 29%, while Senator Warren had the least at 18%. Senator Sanders had the most even spread of answers, though still leaning towards partial answers. This is possibly because there were more questions for Senator Sanders, Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 24 leading to a greater distribution of answers. It is interesting to note, however, that Mayor
Buttigieg had the most full answers and the least nonanswers.
Responses are more difficult to address fully, given that the candidate responding has to not only address what the previous candidate said, but they also must answer implied questions and in some cases the question that was posited to a different candidate. Direct questions are easier to respond to fully, however, as a whole the candidates responded more to other candidates than they answered direct questions. This is partially due to the way debates are organized. Rebuttals and responses take up a majority of the debates, since the basic setup is question, answer, response, rebuttal, possibly second rebuttal, new question. In addition, especially at the beginning of the debates, there was a high number of candidates on the stage.
This means that the three candidates analyzed responded more to other candidates then to direct questions.
Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 25
Discussion
The results of this analysis differed somewhat from the research hypothesis. The number of partial answers was the greatest number for each candidate, but the number of full answers was not always the least. In addition, the candidates that had the most full answers and the least full answers were not expected. Many obstacles come up for candidates trying to give full answers from time to understandability, which added to the greater skew towards partial and nonanswers.
There were limitations with time, which most likely led to the inability to fully answer at least some of the questions. Questions about taxes and healthcare are so complex that depending on the way the question is asked, there is almost no way of fully answering it and definitely not within the 3 to 5 minutes the candidates were given. Furthermore, many of the rebuttals and responses were supposed to exist in a limit of 1 to 2 minutes, leading to many of the candidates being interrupted. Interruptions would cut off what the candidate was saying early, so they were forced to give a concluding sentence before they might have otherwise. This was influenced by the time restrictions as well.
The structure of the debates also influenced the ability of the candidates to give full answers. The moderators would ask a question, wait for an answer, then have a response, then a rebuttal. This structure means that the candidates have to keep track of what was said, oftentimes by multiple different people. This structure also required candidates to understand how to organize their answers in a way that fit into the debates. The candidates had to be aware of what the moderators asked and had to anticipate what other candidates would say or what the public would like to know. This meant that in order for the candidates to give full answers, they needed to understand what they themselves thought that the answer was and then know what the public Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 26 did not know, in order to inform them. The public as a whole is not as well versed in policy or in how policies and such are dealt with in politics.
Understanding what the public knows is crucial to doing well and to answering questions properly for candidates in the debate. However, the candidates also have to balance not sounding completely arrogant and assuming that the public knows nothing. These guesses, educated though they may be, lead to partial answers and nonanswers as seen by the general public, even if those answers are not necessarily partial or nonanswers. The candidates must make their statements understandable, but not overly simplified. They also must be able to simplify the complicated issues, but in a way that still addresses the question. Hence this leads to a lot of partial answers that differ in partiality.
Furthermore, there is a possibility of hostile questions affecting the candidate‘s abilities to provide full answers. These kinds of questions might be more targeted towards the candidates specifically and asked more often to certain people over others. As an example, Senator Sanders and Senator Warren constantly received questions about the cost of their healthcare plans while
Mayor Buttigieg was asked minimally about this subject. Budget questions can rarely be answered fully, given that they are extremely complex. These kinds of questions could have led to more partial or nonanswers, especially if certain candidates were asked more complex questions. It certainly appears, from a glance, that Senator Sanders and Senator Warren were asked more of the complicated questions, not enabling them to answer fully. They got harder questions than Mayor Buttigieg, leading to it looking as though they offered less questions fully.
In addition, there were questions that attacked the candidate‘s knowledge and sometimes even the candidate‘s character. This kind of question is not always obvious, but there is always the added possibility that during a debate these questions occur more often than they might in Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 27 normal conversation. These questions definitely occurred in the debates studied here, often from one candidate to another. This led to the candidate providing a protective answer, often leading to arguments and back and forth without actually answering anything substantial on a topic. A greater amount of nonanswers could indicate that a candidate had more of these questions, but there is no direct indication of that in this analysis.
This analysis showed that most of the answers given by candidates in the democratic presidential debates were partial answers. This ties into the initial thoughts, and makes sense given the context of the debates. Questions and answers provide an interesting look into how a person speaks and thinks about issues. The debates create a further challenging and argumentative atmosphere. The semantics and pragmatics of these debates change with each candidate and with each moderator. This leads to more complication, but in the end, the result is the same. Candidates do not give many full answers, as a possibility of the atmosphere, the difficulty of the questions, and the arguments of the other candidates.
Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 28
Further Study
One further study might investigate hostile questions and rate them on some sort of scale.
Essentially, looking at the questions and comparing the complexity across candidates. The hypothesis could be that the more hostile questions a candidate receives, the more partial answers they will give out. The proposed reasoning is that more complex questions requires more time to answer in order for the answers to both be understood and address all aspects of the question. This would be even more interesting if the political leanings of the candidates were considered. There could be a possibility that candidates that lean left or right are asked more difficult questions than those in the middle.
Another study could rate the partial answers on a scale, given that not all partial answers were the same, yet all were coded as partial answers. There are a lot of ways partiality can be coded, from answering a question that is a smaller part of the original question, to answering a related question. Each candidate was more likely to answer questions in a certain way, some tending towards questions that are related and some tending towards questions that are a smaller part of the original. Furthermore, this analysis could be extended to the rest of the candidates in the debates, including the other party. Something that might be interesting to look at is whether there is a difference between the two main parties and how each of them answer the questions.
Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 29
Works Cited
Bull, P. (2003). The microanalysis of political communication claptrap and ambiguity
(Routledge research international series in social psychology; 7). London; New York:
Routledge.
CNN Hosts Democratic Debate. (2019, July 30). Retrieved September 15, 2019, from
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1907/30/se.01.html
CNN's Democratic Presidential Debate. Aired 10-11:10p ET. (2020, January 14). Retrieved
January 25, 2020, from http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/2001/14/se.02.html
CNN's Democratic Presidential Debate. Aired 9-10p ET. (2020, January 14). Retrieved from
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/2001/14/se.01.html
Eemeren, Garssen, Eemeren, F. H. van, & Garssen, Bart. (2008). Controversy and confrontation
relating controversy analysis with argumentation theory (Controversies; v. 6).
Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins Pub.
Fetzer, A., Weizman, E., & Berlin, L. (2015). The dynamics of political discourse: Forms and
functions of follow-ups (Pragmatics & beyond; 259).
Fracchiolla, B. (2011). Politeness as a strategy of attack in a gendered political debate—The
Royal–Sarkozy debate. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(10), 2480-2488.
Full transcript: Ninth Democratic debate in Las Vegas. (2020, February 20). Retrieved March 10,
2020, from https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/full-transcript-ninth-
democratic-debate-las-vegas-n1139546
alasi ski, & alasi ski. (2000). The language of deception a discourse analytical study.
Thousand Oaks, Calif.; London: SAGE. Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 30
Kamil, Salwa Ibrahim. (2017). The Pragmatics of Manipulation in British and American Political
Debates. Hamburg, GERMANY: Anchor Academic Publishing.
Kimelman, J. (2019, June 27). Full transcript: 2019 Democratic debate Night One, sortable by
topic. Retrieved September 15, 2019, from https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-
election/full-transcript-first-democratic-primary-debate-2019-n1022816
Kimelman, J. (2019, June 28). Full transcript: 2019 Democratic debate Night Two, sortable by
topic. Retrieved September 15, 2019, from https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-
election/full-transcript-2019-democratic-debate-night-two-sortable-topic-n1023601
New Hampshire Democratic Debate Transcript. (2020, February 7). Retrieved February 10,
2020, from https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/new-hampshire-democratic-debate-
transcript
Oswald, S., Herman, T., Jacquin, J., & SpringerLink. (2018). Argumentation and Language —
Linguistic, Cognitive and Discursive Explorations (Argumentation library; v. 32).
Proctor, K., & Su, L. (2011). The 1st person plural in political discourse—American politicians
in interviews and in a debate. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(13), 3251-3266.
Riester, A., Brunetti, L., & De Kuthy, K. (2018). Annotation guidelines for Questions under
Discussion and information structure. In Studies in Language Companion Series (Vol.
199, pp. 403-443). John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Read the Full Transcript of ABC News' 3rd Democratic Debate. (2019, September 12).
Retrieved November 10, 2019, from https://abcnews.go.com/US/read-full-transcript-abc-
news-3rd-democratic-debate/story?id=65587810 Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 31
Read the full transcript of the South Carolina Democratic debate. (2020, February 25). Retrieved
March 10, 2020, from https://www.cbsnews.com/news/south-carolina-democratic-debate-
full-transcript-text/
Roberts, C. (2012) Information Structure in Discourse: Towards an Integrated formal theory of
pragmatics. Semantics and Pragmatics, 5, 1-69.
Roitman, M. (2014). Presidential candidates' ethos of credibility: The case of the presidential
pronoun / in the 2012 Hollande–Sarkozy debate. Discourse & Society, 25(6), 741-765.
Roitman, M. (2015). Constructing One's Arguments Based on Refutations of the Other's
Discourse. A Study of the Traditional Presidential Debate: Chirac/Jospin (1995) Versus
Sarkozy/Royal (2007). Argumentation, 29(1), 19-32
Schr ter, M. (20 3). Silence and concealment in political discourse (Discourse approaches to
politics, society and culture; v. 48). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Pub.
Soleimani, H., & Yeganeh, M. (2016). An analysis of pragmatic competence in 2013 presidential
election candidates of Iran: A comparison of speech acts with the poll outcomes. Theory
and Practice in Language Studies, 6(4), 706-715. staff, F. (2019, November 21). Transcript: The November Democratic debate. Retrieved
December 15, 2020, from
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/11/21/transcript-november-democratic-
debate/ team, T. F. (2019, October 16). The October Democratic debate transcript. Retrieved December
15, 2019, from https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/10/15/october-
democratic-debate-transcript/ Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 32 team, T. F. (2019, December 20). Analysis | Transcript: The December Democratic debate.
Retrieved December 30, 2019, from
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/12/20/transcript-december-democratic-
debate/
Vincze, L., Bongelli, R., Riccioni, I., & Zuczkowski, A. (2016). Ignorance-unmasking questions
in the Royal-Sarkozy presidential debate: A resource to claim epistemic authority.
Discourse Studies, 18(4), 430-453.
Wilson, J. (2015). Talking with the President: The pragmatics of presidential language.
Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 1
Appendix A: Sanders Database
Debate Date Question Asked Answer Type Type 2
30-Jul-19 Let's start the debate with the number-one issue for You're wrong. Right now, we have a dysfunctional health care F D Democratic voters, health care. And Senator Sanders, system: 87 million uninsured or underinsured, $500,000 -- let's start with you. You support Medicare for all, 500,000 Americans every year, going bankrupt because of which would eventually take private health insurance medical bills, 30,000 people dying while the health care industry away from more than 150 million Americans, in makes tens of billions of dollars in profit. Five minutes away exchange for government-sponsored health care for from me and John is a country, it's called Canada. They everyone. Congressman Delaney just referred to it as guarantee health care to every man, woman and child as a human bad policy. And previously, he has called the idea right. They spend half of what we spend. And by the way, when "political suicide that will just get President Trump re- you end up in a hospital in Canada, you come out with no bill at elected." What do you say to Congressman Delaney? all. Health care is a human right, not a privilege. I believe that, I will fight for that.
The fact of the matter is, tens of millions of people lose their P R health insurance every single year when they change jobs or their employer changes that insurance. If you want stability in the health care system, if you want a system which gives you freedom of choice with regard to a doctor or a hospital, which is a system which will not bankrupt you, the answer is to get rid of the profiteering of the drug companies and the insurance companies, move to Medicare for all.
As the author -- as the author of the Medicare bill, let me clear up N R,I,A one thing. As people talk about having insurance, there are millions of people who have insurance, they can't go to the doctor, and when they come out of the hospital, they go bankrupt. All right? What I am talking about and others up here are talking about is no deductibles and no co-payments. And, Jake, your question is a Republican talking point. At the end of the day... And by the way -- and by the way -- by the way -- the health care industry will be advertising tonight on this program.
Let's be clear what this debate is about. Nobody can defend the N I,R dysfunctionality of the current system. What we are taking on is the fact that over the last 20 years the drug companies and the insurance companies have spent $4.5 billion of your health Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 2
insurance money on lobbying and campaign contributions. That is why when I went to Canada the other day, people paid one- tenth the price in Canada for insulin that they're paying in the United States --
So Senator, let's talk about that. If Medicare for all is Well two things, they will be better because Medicare for all is P I,D enacted, there are more than 600,000 union members comprehensive -- it covers all healthcare needs. For senior here in Michigan who would be forced to give up citizens it will finally include dental care, hearing aids and their private healthcare plans. Now, I understand that eyeglasses. Second of all... I do know it, I wrote the damn bill. it would provide universal coverage -- but, can you And second of all, second of all -- many of our union brothers guarantee those union members that the benefits and sisters, nobody more pro-union than me up here, are now under Medicare for all will be as good as the benefits paying high deductibles and copayments when we do Medicare that they're representatives -- their union reps fought for all, instead of having the company putting money in to hard to negotiate? healthcare, they can get decent wage increases, which they're not getting today.
On the Medicare for all, the hospitals will save substantial sums P I,R of money because they're not going to be spending a fortune doing billing and the other bureaucratic things that they have to do today. Second of all --Maybe you did that and made money off of healthcare, but our job is to run a nonprofit healthcare system. Furthermore -- furthermore, when we say $500 billion a year by ending all of the incredible complexities that are driving every American crazy trying to deal with the health insurance companies -- Hospitals will be better off than they are today.
Senator Sanders, you want to provide undocumented Because we'll have strong border protections. But the main point N D,I immigrants free health care and free college. Why I want to make is that what Trump is doing through his racism won't this drive even more people to come to the U.S. and his xenophobia, is demonizing a group of people. And as illegally? president, I will end that demonization. If a mother and a child walk thousands of miles on a dangerous path, in my view, they are not criminals. They are people fleeing violence. And I think the main thing that we've got to do -- among many others, and Beto made this point -- we've got to ask ourselves, "Why are people walking 2,000 miles to a strange country where they don't know the language?" So what we will do, the first week we are in the White House, is bring the entire hemisphere together to talk about how we rebuild Honduras ... Guatemala and El Salvador so Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 3
people do not have to flee their own countries.
Well, I have two things. A sane immigration policy moves the N R comprehensive immigration reform. It moves to a humane border policy, and which, by the way, we have enough administrative judges, so that we don't have incredible backlogs that we have right now. But to your answer your question, I happen to believe that when I talk about healthcare as a human right that applies to all people in this country, and under a Medicare for All single payer system, we could afford to do that.
Senator Sanders, you said this in 2013, just months I think we have got to do -- I think what I meant is what N D after the Sandy Hook massacre, and I quote here: "If President Obama said, in that nobody up here is going to tell you you pass the strongest gun control legislation that we have a magical solution to the crisis. Now, I come from tomorrow, I don't think it will have a profound effect one of the most rural states in America. I have a D-minus voting on the tragedies we have seen." Do you still agree record from the NRA. And as president I suspect it will be an F with that statement today? record. What I believe we have got to do is have the guts to finally take on the NRA. You asked me about my record. Back in 1988, coming from a state that had no gun control, I called for the ban of the sale and distribution of assault weapons. I lost that election. I will do everything I can not only to take on the NRA, but to expand and create universal background checks, do away with the strawman provision, do away with the gun show loophole, and do away with the loopholes that now exist for gun manufacturers who are selling large amounts of weapons into communities that are going to gangs.
Well the truth is that every credible poll that I have seen has me N R, I beating Donald Trump -- including the battleground states of Michigan, where I won the Democratic primary -- Wisconsin where I won the Democratic primary, and Pennsylvania. And the reason we are going to defeat Trump, and beat him badly is that he is a fraud and a phony and we're going to expose him for what he is. The American people want to have a minimum wage which is a living wage, $15 an hour. I've helped lead that effort. The American people want to pay reasonable prices for prescription drugs, not the highest prices in the world -- Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 4
Detroit was mentioned. And I'm delighted that Detroit is N R rebounding. But let us understand, Detroit was nearly destroyed because of awful trade policy which allowed corporations to throw workers in this community out on the streets as they moved to low-wage countries. To win this election, and to defeat Donald Trump -- which, by the way, in my view, is not going to be easy -- we need to have a campaign of energy and excitement and of vision. We need to bring millions of young people into the political process in a way that we have never seen by, among other things, making public colleges...and universities tuition- free and canceling student debt.
I get a little bit tired of Democrats afraid of big ideas. N R Republicans are not afraid of big ideas. They could give $1 trillion in tax breaks to billionaires and profitable corporations. They could bail out the crooks on Wall Street. So please don't tell me that we cannot take on the fossil fuel industry. And nothing happens unless we do that. Here is the bottom line. We've got to ask ourselves a simple question, "What do you do with an industry that knowingly, for billions of dollars in short-term profits, is destroying this planet?" I say that is criminal activity that cannot be allowed to continue.
On this issue, my friends, there is no choice. We have got to be P R,A super aggressive if we love our children and if we want to leave them a planet that is healthy and is habitable, so I don't disagree with Tim. What that means is we got to, A, take on the fossil fuel industry, B, it means we have to transform our energy system away from fossil fuel to energy efficiency and sustainable energy, at a hell of a lot (ph) of good union jobs, as we do that. We got to transform our transportation ... system, and we have to lead the world ... because this is not just an American issue.
Look, Steve, there ain't nobody in the Congress who's more P R,A strongly pro-worker than I am. So when I talk about taking on the fossil fuel industry, what I am also talking about is a just transition. All right. We can create what the Green New Deal is about. It's a bold idea. We can create millions of good-paying Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 5
jobs. We can rebuild communities in rural America that have been devastated. So we are not anti-worker. We are going to provide and make sure that those workers have a transition, new jobs, healthcare and education.
Senator Sanders -- Senator Sanders, you don't think Well, I respond to that by saying that I am supportive of Jim P D cash payments are the best way to address this issue, Clyburn's legislation, which is called 10-20-30. And what that but according to a new Gallup poll, 73 percent of understands is that as a result of slavery, and segregation, and the African-Americans are in favor of cash payments to institutional racism we see now in health care, in education, in black Americans who are descendants of slaves. How financial services, we are going to have to focus big time on do you respond to them? rebuilding distressed communities in America, including African- American communities. In terms of education, I also have a plan. It's called the Thurgood Marshall Plan. And it would focus on ending the growth of segregated schools in America. It would triple funding for Title I schools. It would make sure that teachers in this country earned at least $60,000 a year
Yeah, OK. You're looking, I believe, at the only member of P A Congress who not only voted against these disastrous trade agreements, NAFTA, PNTR with China, which cost us over 4 million jobs, but also helped lead the effort against these agreements. Now, Elizabeth is absolutely right. If anybody here thinks that corporate America gives one damn about the average American worker, you're mistaken. If they can save five cents by going to China, Mexico, or Vietnam, or anyplace else, that's exactly what they will do. As president, let me tell you what I will do. These guys line up at the federal trough. They want military contracts. They want all kinds of contracts. Well, under my administration, you ain't going to get those contracts if you're throwing American workers out on the street.
Senator Sanders, you want to forgive all student loan Matter of fact, I do. But before I get into that, the major issue that N D debt. Your response? we don't talk about in Congress; you don't talk about in the media, is the massive level of income and wealth inequality in America. You've got three people who own more wealth than the bottom 90 percent. You have a top 1 percent that owns more wealth than the bottom 92 percent. Forty-nine percent of all new (ph) income goes to the top 1 percent. Companies like Amazon Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 6
and billionaires out there do not pay one nickel in federal income tax. And we've got 500,000 people sleeping out on the street. What we need is a political revolution that tells these billionaires and corporate America that they are Americans; they'll participate in our society, but they have got to start paying their fair share of taxes, period.
Senator Sanders, President Trump has argued that the Trump is a pathological liar. I tell the truth. We have been in P D,I United States cannot continue to be the, quote, Afghanistan I think 18 years, in Iraq 16 or 17 years. We have "policeman of the world." You said the exact same spent $5 trillion on the war on terror. And there are probably thing on a debate stage in 2016. If voters are hearing more terrorists out there now than before it began. We're going to the same message from you and President Trump on spend -- the Congress passed -- and I will not vote for -- a $715 the issue of military intervention, how should they billion military budget, more than the 10 next countries expect that you will be any different from him? combined. What we need is a foreign policy that focuses on diplomacy, ending conflicts by people sitting at a table, not by killing each other. As president of the United States, I will go to the United Nations and not denigrate it, not attack the U.N., but bring countries together in the Middle East and all over the world to come to terms with their differences and solve those problems peacefully. The United States cannot be the policeman of the world.
Well, Pete is right. It's a question of vision. That's what it is, P R whether you're young, whether you're old, whether you're in between. And my vision, among other things, says that if we're going to fight for health care, we don't take money from the drug companies or the insurance companies. And I have asked all of the candidates who are running to say they will not accept money from those entities who, in my view, are going to war against the American people in terms of health care. That's a new vision. A new vision says that we must cancel completely student debt because the younger generation in this country today, for the first time in modern American history, will have a lower standard of living than their parents.
27-Jun-19 My question to you is, will taxes go up for the middle Well, you're quite right. We have a new vision for America. And N D class in a Sanders administration? And if so, how do at a time when we have three people in this country owning more you sell that to voters? wealth than the bottom half of America, while 500,000 people Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 7
are sleeping out on the streets today, we think it is time for change, real change. And by that, I mean that health care in my view is a human right. And we have got to pass a Medicare for all, single-payer system. Under that system, by the way, vast majority of the people in this country will be paying significantly less for health care than they are right now. I believe that education is the future for this country. And that is why I believe that we must make public colleges and universities tuition-free and eliminate student debt. And we do that by placing a tax on Wall Street. Every proposal that I have brought forth is fully paid for.
Senator Sanders, I'll give you 10 seconds just to ask People who have health care under Medicare for all will have no P D, R the -- answer the very direct question. Will you raise premiums, no deductibles, no copayments, no out-of-pocket taxes for the middle class in a Sanders administration? expenses. Yes, they will pay more in taxes, but less in health care for what they get.
Senator Sanders, I'll give you a chance to weigh in Well, I think the responses that the polls -- last poll I saw had us P R, D here. What is your response to those who say 10 points ahead of Donald Trump because the American people nominating a "socialist" would re-elect Donald understand that Trump is a phony, that Trump is a pathological Trump? liar and a racist, and that he lied to the American people during his campaign. He said he was going to stand up for working families. Well, President Trump, you're not standing up for working families when you try to throw 32 million people off their health care that they have and that 83 percent of your tax benefits go to the top 1 percent. That's how we beat Trump: We expose him for the fraud that he is.
As part of Joe's generation, let me respond… It's not N A generational. The issue is, who has the guts to take on Wall Street, to take on the fossil fuel industry, to take on the big money interests who have unbelievable influence over the economic and political life of this country?
Senator Sanders, you have basically -- you basically Lester, I find it hard to believe that every other major country on N D want to scrap the private health insurance system as Earth, including my neighbor 50 miles north of me, Canada, we know it and replace it with a government-run plan. somehow has figured out a way to provide health care to every None of the states that have tried something like that, man, woman, and child, and in most cases, they're spending 50 California, Vermont, New York has struggled with it, percent per capita what we are spending. Let's be clear. Let us be Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 8
have been successful. If politicians can't make it work very clear. The function of health care today from the insurance in those states, how would you implement it on a and drug company perspective is not to provide quality care to all national level? How does this work? in a cost-effective way. The function of the health care system today is to make billions in profits for the insurance companies. And last year, if you can believe it, while we pay the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs -- and I will lower prescription drugs prices in half in this country -- top 10 companies made $69 billion in profit. They will spend hundreds of millions of dollars lying to the American people, telling us why we cannot have a Medicare for all single-payer program.
Given the fact that it's not succeeded and other states I will tell you how we'll do it. We'll do it the way real change has N D, A have tried? always taken place, whether it was the labor movement, the civil rights movement, or the women's movement. We will have Medicare for all when tens of millions of people are prepared to stand up and tell the insurance companies and the drug companies that their day is gone, that health care is a human right, not something to make huge profits off of.
Just very briefly, you know, Mike, Medicare is the most N I popular…(Bennet)... health insurance program in the country. People don't like their private insurance companies. They like their doctors and hospitals. Under our plan people go to go to any doctor they want, any hospital they want. We will substantially lower the cost of health care in this country because we'll stop the greed of the insurance companies.
I want to suggest that I agree with a lot of what Kamala just said. N A,R And that is, on day one, we take out our executive order pen and we rescind every damn thing on this issue that Trump has done. Number two, number two, picking up on the point that Joe made, we've got to look at the root causes. And you have a situation where Honduras, among other things, is a failing state. Massive corruption. You've got gangs who are telling families that if a 10- year-old does not join that gang, that family is going to be killed. What we have got to do on day one is invite the presidents and the leadership of Central America and Mexico together. This is a hemispheric problem that we have got to address. Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 9
Senator Sanders, Senator Sanders, I'm going to go to No, absolutely not. Unlike the Republican Party, we encourage F D you on this. You said on the day you launched your diversity, we believe in diversity. That's what America is about. campaign that voters should focus on what people But in addition to diversity, in terms of having more women, stand for, not a candidate's race or age or sexual more people from the LGBT community, we also have to do orientation. Many Democrats are very excited by the something else. And that is, we have to ask ourselves a simple diversity of this field on this stage and on last night's question, in that how come today the worker in the middle of our stage and the perspective that diversity brings to this economy is making no more money than he or she made 45 years contest and to these issues.(Interrupt) Are you telling ago, and that in the last 30 years, the top 1 percent has seen a $21 Democratic voters that diversity shouldn't matter trillion increase in their wealth? We need a party that is diverse, when they make this decision? but we need a party that has the guts to stand up to the powerful special interests who have so much power over the economic and political life of this country.
Senator Sanders, I'd like to put a different question to Well, my plan, as somebody who believes for a start that a P D you. Roe v. Wade has been the law of the land since woman's right to control her own body is a constitutional right, 1973. Now that there is a conservative majority on the that government and politicians should not infringe on that right, Supreme Court, several Republican-controlled states we will do everything we can to defend Roe versus Wade. have passed laws to severely restrict or even ban Second of all, let me make a -- let me make a promise here. You abortion. One of those laws could very well make it to ask about litmus tests. My litmus test is I will never appoint any, the Supreme Court during your presidency, if you're nominate any justice to the Supreme Court unless that justice is elected president. What is your plan if Roe is struck 100 percent clear he or she will defend Roe v. Wade. Third of down in the court while you're president? all... I do not believe in packing the court. We got a terrible 5-4 majority conservative court right now. But I do believe that constitutionally we have the power to rotate judges to other courts. And that brings in new blood into the Supreme Court and a majority, I hope, that will understand that a woman has the right to control her own body and the corporations cannot run the United States of America.
... what if the court has already overturned Roe and We will pass -- well, first of all, let me tell you this. It didn't N R Roe is gone? All of the things you've just described come up here, but let's face this, Medicare for All guarantees would be to try to preserve Roe. If Roe is gone, what every woman in this country the right to have an abortion if she could you do as president to preserve abortion rights? wants it.
Look, the old ways are no longer relevant. The scientists tell us N R we have 12 years before there is irreparable damage to this planet. This is a global issue. What the president of the United States should do is not deny the reality of climate change but tell Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 10
the rest of the world that, instead of spending a trillion and a half dollars on weapons of destruction, let us get together for the common enemy, and that is to transform the world's energy system away from fossil fuel to energy efficiency and sustainable energy. The future of the planet rests on us doing that.
No, take on the fossil fuels, and that's the solution P R
Senator Sanders, first thing? Chuck, the premise that there's only one or two issues out N D, I there…(Interrupt)This country faces enormous crises. We need a political revolution. People have got to stand up and take on the special interests. We can transform this country.
Senator Sanders, a Vermont newspaper recently No, that's a mischaracterization of my thinking. F D released portions of an interview you gave in 2013 in which you said: "My own view on guns is, everything being equal, states should make those decisions. ―Has your thinking changed since then? Do you now think there is a federal role to play?
Look, we have a gun...We have a gun crisis right now, 40,000 F D people a year are getting killed. In 1988, Rachel, when it wasn't popular, I ran on a platform of banning assault weapons and in fact lost that race for Congress. I have a D-minus voting record from the NRA. And I believe that what we need is comprehensive gun legislation that, among other things, provides universal background, we end the gun show loophole, we end the strawman provision, and I believed in 1988 and I believe today. Assault weapons are weapons from the military and that they should not be on the streets of America.
Your plan leaves them on the streets. You leave 15 We ban the sale -- we ban the sale and distribution… ... and that's N R million on the streets. what I've believed for many years.
Will you buy them back? If people want to buy -- if the government wants to do that and N D,R people want to bring them back, yes.
You are going to be the government, will you buy yes F D them back? Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 11
And this is what this question is, which is, you're It's not one country. I think it is rebuilding trust in the United N I,D going to have to -- you're likely going to have to reset Nations and understand that we can solve…(Interrupt)... conflicts a relationship between America and another country without war, but with diplomacy. or entity if you become president because of some -- perhaps because of some relationship that you just mentioned about President Trump. What is the first relationship you would like to reset as president?
One of the differences -- one of the differences that Joe and I P R,A have in our record is Joe voted for that war, I helped lead the opposition to that war, which was a total disaster. Second of all, I helped lead the effort for the first time to utilize the War Powers Act to get the United States out of the Saudi-led intervention in Yemen, which is the most horrific humanitarian disaster on Earth. And thirdly, let me be very clear. I will do everything I can to prevent a war with Iran, which would be far worse than disastrous war with Iraq.
12-Sep-19 Senator Sanders, you were invoked by the vice Well, Joe said that Medicare for All would cost over $30 trillion. P R president, also take on that question about taxes. That's right, Joe. Status quo over 10 years will be $50 trillion. Every study done shows that Medicare for All is the most cost- effective approach to providing health care to every man, woman, and child in this country. I, who wrote the damn bill, if I may say so… ... intend to eliminate all out-of-pocket expenses, all deductibles, all co-payments. Nobody in America will pay more than $200 a year for prescription drugs, because we're going to stand up to the greed and corruption and price-fixing of the pharmaceutical industry. We need -- we need a health care system that guarantees health care to all people as every other major country does, not a system which provides $100 billion a year in profit for the drug companies and the insurance companies. And I'll tell you how absurd the system is tonight on ABC, the health care industry will be advertising, telling you how bad Medicare for All is, because they want to protect their profits. That is absurd. Let us be clear, Joe, in the United States of America, we are spending twice as much per capita on health care as the Canadians or any other major country on earth. Yes, but Americans don't want to pay twice as much as other Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 12
countries. And they guarantee health care to all people. Under my Medicare for All proposal, when you don't pay out-of-pocket and you don't pay premiums, maybe you've run into people who love their premiums, I haven't. What people want is cost- effective health care, Medicare for All will save the average American substantial sums of money on his or her health care bill.
George, you talked about, was it 150 million people on private P R,A insurance? Fifty million of those people lose their private insurance every year when they quit their jobs or they go unemployed or their employer changes their insurance policy. Medicare for All is comprehensive health care. Covers all basic needs, including home health care. It allows you to go to any doctor you want, which many private insurance company programs do not. So, if you want comprehensive health care, freedom of choice regarding doctor or hospital, no more than $200 a year for prescription drugs, taking on the drug companies and the insurance companies, moving to Medicare for All is the way to go.
All right. Two points. You got to defend the fact that today not P R,A only do we have 87 million people uninsured and underinsured, you got to defend the fact that 500,000 Americans are going bankrupt. You know why they're going bankrupt? Because they suffered a terrible disease -- cancer or heart disease. Under my legislation, people will not go into financial ruin because they suffered with a diagnosis of cancer. And our program is the only one that does that.
Would you support ending the filibuster? No. But what I would support, absolutely, is passing major F D legislation, the gun legislation the people here are talking about, Medicare for all, climate change legislation that saves the planet. I will not wait for 60 votes to make that happen, and you can do it in a variety of ways. You can do that through budget reconciliation law. You have a vice president who will, in fact, tell the Senate what is appropriate and what is not, what is in order and what is not. But I want to get back to a point that Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 13
Elizabeth made and that, in fact, in terms of gun issues, picking up on Cory and Beto and everybody else, what we are looking at is a corrupt political system, and that means whether it is the drug companies or the insurance companies or the fossil fuel industry determining what's happening in Washington or, in this case, you've got an NRA which has intimidated the president of the United States and the Republican leadership. I am proud -- I am proud that, year after year, I had an "F" rating from the NRA. And as president, I will not be intimidated by the NRA
Well, there is a reason -- there is a reason why, in the last 45 P R years, the average American today, despite an explosion of technology and worker productivity, is not making a penny more than he or she made 45 years ago. And one of the reasons is that, for decades, we have had disastrous trade policies. I got to say to my good friend, Joe Biden, Joe and I strongly disagree on trade. I helped lead the opposition to NAFTA and PNTR, which cost this country over 4 million good-paying jobs. And what happened is people who had those jobs ended up getting other jobs making 50 percent of what they made in manufacturing.
So Trump, obviously, hasn't a clue. Trump thinks that trade policy is a tweet at 3 o'clock in the morning. What we have got to do is develop a trade policy that represents workers, represents the farmers in the Midwest and elsewhere, who are losing billions right now because of Trump's policy, a trade policy which understands that if a company shuts down in America and goes abroad, and then thinks they're going to get online to get a lucrative federal contract, under Bernie Sanders, they got another guess coming.
What do you make of people out there who are David, let me answer that, but let me just comment on something N I worried that if we pull out U.S. troops too quickly that the vice president said. You talked about the big mistake in from Afghanistan, it will create safe haven all over Iraq and the surge. The truth is, the big mistake, the huge again, like the plotters of 9/11? mistake, and one of the big differences between you and me, I never believed what Cheney and Bush said about Iraq... (interrupt) I voted against the war in Iraq. ... and helped lead the opposition. And it's sad to say -- I mean, I, kind of, you know, Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 14
had the feeling that there would be massive destabilization in that area if we went into that war.
As the former chairman of the Senate Committee on Veterans Affairs, I want to pick up on what Pete said. We cannot express our gratitude to all of the men and women who have put their lives on the line to defend them -- defend us, who have responded to the call of duty. But I think, also, I am the only person up here to have voted against all three of Trump's military budgets. I don't think we have to spend $750 billion a year on the military when we don't even know who our enemy is. I think that what we have got to do is bring this world together -- bring it together on climate change, bring it together in fighting against terrorism. And make it clear that we as a planet, as a global community, will work together to help countries around the world rebuild their struggling economies and do everything that we can to rid the world of terrorism. But dropping bomb on Afghanistan and Iraq was not the way to do it.
You admit that Venezuela does not have free Well, first of all, let me be very clear. Anybody who does what F D, I elections, but still you refuse to call Nicolas Maduro a Maduro does is a vicious tyrant. What we need now is dictator -- a dictator. Can you explain why? And what international and regional cooperation for free elections in are the main differences between your kind of Venezuela so that the people of that country can make -- can socialism and the one being imposed in Venezuela, create their own future. In terms of democratic socialism, to Cuba and Nicaragua? equate what goes on in Venezuela with what I believe is extremely unfair. I'll tell you what I believe in terms of democratic socialism. I agree with goes on in Canada and in Scandinavia, guaranteeing health care to all people as a human right. I believe that the United States should not be the only major country on earth not to provide paid family and medical leave. I believe that every worker in this country deserves a living wage and that we expand the trade union movement. I happen to believe also that what, to me, democratic socialism means, is we deal with an issue we do not discuss enough, Jorge -- it's not in the media and not in Congress. You've got three people in America owning more wealth than the bottom half of this country. You've got a handful of billionaires controlling what goes on in Wall Street, the insurance companies and in the Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 15
media. Maybe, just maybe, what we should be doing is creating an economy... (interrupted)... that works for all of us, not 1 percent. That's my understanding of democratic socialism.
Guess what? You're guessing, all right, here's the answer. We are N R, I the wealthiest country in the history of the world. And yet, we have the highest child poverty rate of almost any country on earth. We have teachers in this country who are leaving education because they can't work two or three jobs to support themselves. Which is why, under my legislation, we'll move to see that every teacher in America makings at least $60,000 a year. What we will also do is not only have universal pre-K, we will make public colleges and universities and HBCUs debt-free. And what we will always also do, because this is an incredible burden on millions and millions of young people who did nothing wrong except try to get the education they need, we are going to cancel all student debt in this country. (Interrupted) And we are going to do that by imposing a tax on Wall Street speculation.
So I want to ask each of you, what's the most Resilience, to me, means growing up in a rent-controlled F D significant professional setback you've had to face? apartment in Brooklyn, New York, the son of an immigrant who How did you recover from it? And what did you learn came to this country without a nickel in his pocket. Professional from it? resilience means to me, George, running for U.S. Senate in Vermont and getting 1 percent of the vote, running for governor and getting 2 percent of the vote, finally becoming mayor of Burlington, Vermont, with a 10-vote margin. What resilience means to me is that throughout my political career, I have taken on virtually every powerful special interest in this country, whether it is Wall Street, whether it is the insurance industry, whether it is the pharmaceutical industry whose corruption and greed is killing people today, whether it is a military industrial complex or a prison industrial complex. And I feel confident that given a lifelong record of taking on powerful special interests, of standing up for the working families of this country, that I will be able to take on the greed and corruption of the corporate elite and create a government and an economy that work for all of us, not Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 16
just the 1 percent.
15-Oct-19 Thank you, Senator Warren. You're all going to get in No, they don't. In my judgment, Trump is the most corrupt F D on this, by the way. Senator Sanders, do Democrats president in the history of this country. It's not just that he have any chance but to impeach President Trump? obstructed justice with the Mueller Report. I think that the House Please respond. will find him guilty of -- worthy of impeachment because of the emoluments clause. This is a president who is enriching himself while using the Oval Office to do that, and that is outrageous. And I think in terms of the recent Ukrainian incident, the idea that we have a president of the United States who is prepared to hold back national security money to one of our allies in order to get dirt on a presidential candidate is beyond comprehension. So I look forward, by the way, not only to a speedy and expeditious impeachment process, but Mitch McConnell has got to do the right thing and allow a free and fair trial in the Senate.
Let me make a point. I think that it is absolutely imperative we N R go forward with impeachment. I hope that he is impeached. But I think what would be a disaster, if the American people believe that all we were doing is taking on Trump and we're forgetting that 87 million Americans are uninsured or underinsured. We're forgetting about the existential threat of climate change. We are forgetting about the fact that half of our people are living paycheck to paycheck. So what we have got to do is end this corruption, set a precedent for future history that says presidents like this cannot behave this way. But we cannot and must not turn our backs on the pain of the working class of this country
Well, as somebody who wrote the damn bill, as I said, let's be P R clear. Under the Medicare for all bill that I wrote, premiums are gone. Co-payments are gone. Deductibles are gone. All out-of- pocket expenses are gone. We're going to do better than the Canadians do, and that is what they have managed to do. At the end of the day, the overwhelming majority of people will save money on their health care bills. But I do think it is appropriate to acknowledge that taxes will go up. They're going to go up significantly for the wealthy. And for virtually everybody, the tax increase they pay will be substantially less -- substantially less Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 17
than what they were paying for premiums and out-of-pocket expansions.
Senator Sanders, you say your federal jobs guarantee Damn right we will. And I'll tell you why. If you look at what F D is part of the answer to the threat from automation, goes on in America today, we have an infrastructure which is but tens of millions of Americans could end up losing collapsing. We could put 15 million people to work rebuilding their jobs. Are you promising that you will have a job our roads, our bridges, our water systems, our wastewater plants, for every single one of those Americans? airports, et cetera. Furthermore -- and I hope we will discuss it at length tonight -- this planet faces the greatest threat in its history from climate change. And the Green New Deal that I have advocated will create up to 20 million jobs as we move away from fossil fuel to energy efficiency and sustainable energy. We need workers to do childcare. We need workers, great teachers to come in to school systems which don't have the teachers that we need right now. We need more doctors. We need more dentists. We need more carpenters. We need more sheet metal workers. And when we talk about making public colleges and universities tuition fee and cancelling student debt, we're going to give those people the opportunity to get those good jobs.
Senator Sanders, is Turkey still a U.S. ally? Should No, Turkey is not a U.S. ally when they invade another country P D they remain in NATO? (Interrupt) Is Turkey still a and engage in mass slaughter. The crisis here, as I think Joe said U.S. ally? Should they remain in NATO? and Pete said, is when you begin to betray people, in terms of the Kurds, 11,000 of them died fighting ISIS, 20,000 were wounded. And the United States said, "We're with you, we're standing with you." And then suddenly, one day after a phone call with Erdogan, announced by tweet, Trump reverses that policy. Now, you tell me what country in the world will trust the word of the president of the United States. In other words, what he has done is wreck our ability to do foreign policy, to do military policy, because nobody in the world will believe this pathological liar.
I'm more than happy to answer your question, but I wanted to P A, I pick up on what Kamala and Cory and others have said. Let's take a deep breath. Take a look at this opioid epidemic. You have executives, CEOs of major pharmaceutical companies, making tens of millions of dollars a year. And in this particular case with the opioids, they knew that they were selling a product to Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 18
communities all over this country which were addicting people and killing them. And last year, the top 10 drug companies made $69 billion in profit. This is what unfettered capitalism is doing to this country. And it's not just the drug companies. Right now, the CEOs in the fossil fuel industry know full well that their product is destroying this world. And they continue to make huge profits. That is why we need a political revolution... (interrupt)... that says enough is enough to this behavior.
... as you just said. But there is a question on a lot of Well, let me invite you all to a major rally we're having in N D people's minds, and I want to address it tonight. Queens, New York, berniesanders.com. We're going to have a You're 78 years old, and you just had a heart attack. special guest at that event. And we are going to be mounting a How do you reassure Democratic voters that you're up vigorous campaign all over this country. That is how I think I can to the stress of the presidency. reassure the American people. But let me take this moment, if I might, to thank so many people from all over this country, including many of my colleagues up here, for their love, for their prayers, for their well wishes. And I just want to thank you from the bottom of my heart. And I'm so happy to be back here with you this evening.
When we talk about a rigged economy, it's not just the grotesque P R level of income and wealth inequality. It is also the fact that in sector after sector, whether it is Wall Street, where you have six banks that have assets equivalent to half of the GDP of the United States, whether it is media, where you have 10 media companies that control about 90 percent of what the American people see, hear, or read, whether it is agribusiness, where we see merger after merger which is resulting in the decline of family- based farming in this country, we need a president who has the guts to appoint an attorney general who will take on these huge monopolies, protect small business, and protect consumers by ending the price fixing that we see every day
Two things. Let me explain in two ways. Joe, you talked about N A,R working with Republicans and getting things done. But you know what you also got done? And I say this as a good friend. You got the disastrous war in Iraq done. You got a bankruptcy bill, which is hurting middle-class families all over this country. Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 19
You got trade agreements, like NAFTA and PNTR, with China done, which have cost us 4 million jobs. Now, let's get to Medicare for all. Let's be honest. We spend twice as much per person as do the people of any other major country on Earth. And the answer is, if we have the guts that I would like to see the Democratic Party have that guts, to stand up to the drug companies and the insurance companies and tell them that the function of health care is to guarantee care to all people, not to make $100 billion in profit.
Senator Sanders, why is your approach more likely to I'll tell you why. (Interrupt) And here's the radical reason why. P I, D beat President Trump? It's what the American people want. (Interrupt) All right, the American people do not want tax breaks for billionaires. They want the rich to start paying their fair share of taxes. A poll came out yesterday, 71 percent of Democrats support Medicare for all. The people of this country understand that we've got to make public colleges and universities tuition-free. And more and more Americans, including Republicans, understand we need bold action if we're going to save this planet for our children and our grandchildren. The way you win an election in this time in history is not the same old, same old. You have to inspire people. You have to excite people. You've got to bring working people and young people and poor people into the political process... (Interrupt)... because they know you stand for them, not corporate America.
So in that spirit, we'd like you to tell us about a When I was chairman of the Senate Committee on Veterans P D friendship that you've had that would surprise us and Affairs, I tried to get through the most comprehensive piece of what impact it's had on you and your beliefs. veterans legislation in modern American history. And I failed. I only had two Republicans to vote with me in the Senate. So we had to go back to the drawing board. And I worked with John McCain. I certainly did not get in that legislation working with McCain all that I wanted. But it turned out that we were able to pass a very, very significant piece of legislation, including $5 billion more for the Veterans Administration. More recently, I worked with a very conservative Republican from Utah, Mike Lee. And Mike understood, although he and I disagree on everything, that the U.S. involvement in the Saudi-led war in Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 20
Yemen was a catastrophic disaster for the people of Yemen. And for the first time in 45 years, we were able to get the War Powers Act utilized and get U.S. -- get the votes to get the U.S. troops out of that area. But I think, at the end of day, what I appreciate is that we have got to end the hatred that Trump is fostering on our people, the divisiveness, trying to divide us up by the color of our skin or where we were born or our sexual orientation or our religion. And there is no job that I would undertake with more passion than bringing our people together around an agenda that works for every man, woman, and child in this country rather than the corporate elite and the 1 percent. A progressive agenda that stands for all is the way that we transform this country.
20-Nov-19 Senator Sanders, I'd like to go to you. Americans are Well, Rachel, sadly, we have a president who is not only a P D watching these impeachment hearings. At the same pathological liar, he is likely the most corrupt president in the time, they're also focused on their more immediate, modern history of America. But we cannot simply be consumed daily economic and family concerns. How central by Donald Trump, because if we are, you know what? We're should the president's conduct uncovered by this going to lose the election. Right now, you've got 87 million impeachment inquiry be to any Democratic nominee's people who have no health insurance or are underinsured. We're campaign for president? How central would it be to facing the great existential crisis of our time in terms of climate yours? change. You've got 500,000 people sleeping out on the street and you've got 18 million people paying half of their limited incomes for housing. What the American people understand is that the Congress can walk and chew bubblegum at the same time. In other words, we can deal with Trump's corruption, but we also have to stand up for the working families of this country. We also have to stand up to the fact that our political system is corrupt, dominated by a handful of billionaires, and that our economy is rigged with three people owning more wealth than the bottom half of America. We can do it all when we rally the American people in the cause of justice.
President Obama explicitly said the country is, quote, No, he's right. We don't have to tear down the system, but we do F D "less revolutionary than it is interested in have to do what the American people want. And the American improvement. The average American doesn't think we people understand today that the current health care system is not have to completely tear down the system and remake only cruel, it is dysfunctional. Now, you tell me how we have a it," end quote. Is President Obama wrong? system in which we spend twice as much as do the people of any other country, and yet we've got 87 million uninsured, Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 21
underinsured. In some cases, we pay 10 times more for prescription drugs as do the people of Canada or other countries. Five hundred thousand people go bankrupt because of medically related issues. They come down with cancer, and that's a reason to go bankrupt? Now, some of the people up here think that we should not take on the insurance industry, we should not take on the pharmaceutical industry. But you know what? If you think back to FDR and if you think back to JFK and Harry Truman and Barack Obama, as a matter of fact, people have been talking about health care for all. Well, you know what? I think now is the time. And in the first week of my administration, we will introduce Medicare for all. Medicare for all, that means no deductibles, no co-payments, no out-of-pocket expenses. That's where we've got to go.
Chants of "Lock Her Up" are still heard at President Well, I think the people of this country are catching on to the N D Trump's rallies today. Now some opponents of the degree that this president thinks he is above the law. And what president are turning the same slogan against him. the American people are saying: Nobody is above the law. And I They've chanted "Lock Him Up" at a recent World think what the American people are also saying is, in fact, that if Series game in Washington and at a Veterans Day this president did break the law, he should be prosecuted like any event in New York and, Senator Sanders, at at least other individual who breaks the law. But at the end of the day, two of your campaign events recently. Senator, should what we need to do is to bring our people together not just in Democrats discourage this? Or are you OK with it? opposition to Trump. The initial question I think that you wrote - - that somebody raised here was that we are a divided nation. You know what? I kind of reject that. I think when you talk about the pain of working families in this country, majority of the American people want to raise the minimum wage to a living wage. When you talk about the climate crisis, the overwhelming majority of the American people know that it is real, they know we have to take on the fossil fuel industry, they know we have to transform our energy system away from fossil fuel to energy sufficiency and sustainable energy. Even on issues like guns, the American people are coming together to end the horrific level of gun violence. So I believe, yeah, we've got to deal with Trump, but we also have to have an agenda that brings our people together so that the wealth and income doesn't just go to the people on top but to all of us. Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 22
Well, I think Joe is right. I think that it is the function of the P R attorney general. But what I am of the opinion is that the American people now do believe, and the more they see these impeachment hearings on television, they do believe that we have a president who thinks he's above the law. We have a president who has engaged in corruption. We have a president who has obstructed justice and, in my view, somebody who's violated the emoluments clause. I think Joe is right, that is the function of an independent Department of Justice. But my inclination is that the American people do believe that this president is in violation of the law.
Tom, you stated… (interrupt)You talked about the need to make P A, I climate change a national emergency. I've introduced legislation to just do that. Now, I disagree with the thrust of the original question, because your question has said, what are we going to do in decades? We don't have decades. What the scientists are telling us, if we don't get our act together within the next eight or nine years, we're talking about cities all over the world, major cities going underwater, we're talking about increased drought, talking about increased extreme weather disturbances. The United Nations is telling us that in the years to come there are going to be hundreds of millions of climate refugees causing national security issues all over the world. What we have got to do tonight, and I will do as president, is to tell the fossil fuel industry that their short-term profits are not more important than the future of this planet. And by the way, the fossil fuel industry is probably criminally liable, because they have lied and lied and lied when they had the evidence that their carbon products were destroying the planet, and maybe we should think about prosecuting them, as well.
Two more U.S. soldiers were killed today in Well, let me just say this. One of the big differences between the F D Afghanistan tragically in America's longest war. vice president and myself is he supported the terrible war in Iraq Senator Sanders, you've long said you wanted to bring and I helped lead the opposition against it. And not only that, I the troops back home from Afghanistan. Would you voted against the very first Gulf War, as well. And I think we cut a deal with the Taliban to end the war, even if it need a foreign policy which understands who our enemies are, means the collapse of the Afghan government that that we don't have to spend ten -- more than -- more money on Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 23
America has long supported? the military than the next 10 nations combined. But to answer your question, yeah, I think it is time after spending many trillions of dollars on these endless wars, which have resulted in more dislocation and mass migrations and pain in that region, it is time to bring our troops home. But unlike Trump, I will not do it through a tweet at 3 o'clock in the morning. I will do it working with the international community. And if it's necessary to negotiate with the Taliban, of course we will do that. But at the end of the day, we have to rethink the entire war on terror, which has caused so much pain and lost so many lives, not only for our own men and women in the armed forces, but for people in that region, as well.
I think I may have been the first person up here to make it clear F R that Saudi Arabia not only murdered Khashoggi, but this is a brutal dictatorship which does everything it can to crush democracy, treats women as third-class citizens. And when we rethink our American foreign policy, what we have got to know is that Saudi Arabia is not a reliable ally. We have got to bring Iran and Saudi Arabia together in a room under American leadership and say we are sick and tired of us spending huge amounts of money and human resources because of your conflicts. And by the way, the same thing goes with Israel and the Palestinians. It is no longer good enough for us simply to be pro-Israel. I am pro-Israel. But we must treat the Palestinian people as well with the respect and dignity that they deserve. What is going on in Gaza right now, where youth unemployment is 70 percent or 80 percent, is unsustainable. So we need to be rethinking who our allies are around the world, work with the United Nations, and not continue to support brutal dictatorships.
Let me just -- Amy mentioned that women feel strongly on it. P A, R Well, let me just tell you that if there's ever a time in American history where the men of this country must stand with the women, this is the moment. And I get very tired, very tired of hearing the hypocrisy from conservatives who say get the government off our backs, we want small government. Well, if you want to get the government out of the backs of the American Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 24
people, then understand that it is women who control their own bodies, not politicians.
To your original point, the American people understand that the F R political system we have today is corrupt. And it is not just voter suppression, which cost the Democratic Party a governorship here in this state, not just denying black people and people of color the right to vote, but we also have a system through Citizens United which allows billionaires to buy elections. So what we need to do, simple and straightforward, in every state in this country through the federal government, if you are 18, you have a right to vote, end of discussion. We have to overturn Citizens United. We need to move toward public funding of elections.
19-Dec-19 Senator Sanders, why do you think more people are Well, Judy, what I would say is that we have a president who is a P D not in support of impeachment and what else can you pathological liar. We have a president who is running the most do? corrupt administration in the modern history of this country, and we have a president who is a fraud, because during his campaign, he told working people one thing, and he ended up doing something else. I believe, and I will personally be doing this in the coming weeks and months, is making the case that we have a president who has sold out the working families of this country, who wants to cut Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid after he promised he would not do that, and who has documentedly lied thousands of times since he is president. And the case is to be made is -- yes, certainly, I disagree with Trump on virtually all of his policies, but what conservatives, I think, understand is that we cannot have a president with that temperament who is dishonoring the presidency of the United States.
Senator Sanders, today, the House of Representatives Judy, you're talking to somebody who, unlike some of my F D voted for a new bipartisan trade agreement among the colleagues here, voted against NAFTA, voted against PNTR with United States, Canada and Mexico. It was supported China -- two agreements that cost us over 4 million decent- by union-friendly leaders like Speaker Nancy Pelosi paying jobs. Now, I don't agree with the -- your statement that and big labor groups like the AFL-CIO. They say it is people think this is going to be a great job creator. This is a going to be a big job creator. Senator, my question is, modest improvement over what we have right now. It would will you support this deal? And, if not, why not? allow, hopefully, Mexican workers to organize into unions, Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 25
independent unions and be able to negotiate decent contracts. But at the end of the day, in my view, it is not going to stop outsourcing. It is not going to stop corporations from moving to Mexico, where manufacturing workers make less than $2 an hour. What we need is a trade policy that stands up for workers, stands up for farmers. And, by the way, the word "climate change," to the best of my knowledge, is not discussed in this new NAFTA agreement at all, which is an outrage. So, no, I will not be voting for this agreement, although it makes some modest improvements.
Look, here's the response. Trump goes around saying the N R economy is doing great. Do you know what real inflation accounted for wages went up last year? 1.1 percent. That ain't great. Tonight, while three people own more wealth than the bottom half of America, 500,000 Americans, including 30,000 veterans, are sleeping out on the streets. Today in America, we have the highest rate of childhood poverty of almost any major country on Earth, more income and wealth inequality than since the 1920s. We need an economy that works for working families, not just the 1 percent. That is what our campaign is about.
Tim, in all due respect, your question misses the mark. It is not N R an issue of relocating people in towns. The issue now is whether we save the planet for our children and our grandchildren. The issue, as you should know, what the scientists are telling us is they have underestimated the threat and severity of climate change. You're talking about the Paris agreement, that's fine. Ain't enough. We have got to -- and I've introduced legislation to do this -- declare a national emergency. The United States has got to lead the world. And maybe, just maybe, instead of spending $1.8 trillion a year globally on weapons of destruction, maybe an American president, i.e. Bernie Sanders, can lead the world, instead of spending money to kill each other, maybe we pool our resources and fight our common enemy, which is climate change.
Senator Sanders, I do want to put the same question to I will answer that question, but I wanted to get back to the issue N R,D Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 26
you, Senator Sanders. What message do you think... of climate change for a moment, because I do believe this is the existential issue.
I certainly can. Because people of color, in fact, are going to be N R the people suffering most if we do not deal with climate change. And by the way, we have an obligation up here, if there are not any of our African-American brothers and sisters up here, to speak about an economy in which African-Americans are exploited, where black women die three times at higher rates than white women, where we have a criminal justice system which is racist and broken, disproportionately made up of African- Americans and Latinos and Native Americans who are in jail. So we need an economy that focuses on the needs of oppressed, exploited people, and that is the African-American community.
Let's now turn to the issue of foreign policy and the Israel has -- and I say this as somebody who lived in Israel as a P D Middle East. Senator Sanders, Secretary of State Mike kid, proudly Jewish -- Israel has the right not only to exist, but to Pompeo recently declared that the United States exist in peace and security. But what -- but what U.S. foreign believes Israeli settlements in the West Bank do not policy must be about is not just being pro-Israel. We must be violate international law. That broke decades-long pro-Palestinian, as well. And whether, in my view -- we must U.S. precedent. How would you respond to Israeli understand that right now in Israel we have leadership under expansion of settlements? Would you link that to Netanyahu, who has recently, as you know, been indicted for foreign aid to Israel? bribery, who, in my view, is a racist -- what we need is a level playing field in terms of the Middle East, which addresses the terrible crisis in Gaza, where 60 percent or 70 percent of the young people are unemployed. So what my foreign policy will be about is human rights, is democracy, is bringing people together in a peaceful way, trying to negotiate agreements, not endless wars with trillions of dollars of expenses.
He also said, quote, "If you look at the world and look And I'm white, as well. Yes. (Interrupt) Well, I got a lot of F D. I at the problems, it's usually old people, usually old respect for Barack Obama. I think I disagree with him on this men, not getting out of the way." Senator Sanders, one. Maybe a little self-serving, but I do disagree. Here is the you are the oldest candidate on stage this evening. issue. The issue is where power resides in America, and it's not (Interrupt) How do you respond to what the former white or black or male or female. We are living in a nation president had to say? increasingly becoming an oligarchy, where you have a handful of billionaires who spend hundreds of millions of dollars buying elections and politicians. You have more income and wealth Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 27
inequality today than at any time since the 1920s. We are the only major country on Earth not to guarantee health care for all people, which is why we need Medicare for all. We are facing an existential crisis of climate change. The issue is not old or young, male or female. The issue is working people standing up, taking on the billionaire class, and creating a government and economy that works for all, not just the 1 percent.
I am -- I am rather proud, maybe, I don't know, the only P A,R candidate up here that doesn't have any billionaire contributions. But you know what I do have? We have received more contributions from more individuals than any candidate in the history of the United States of America at this point in an election, averaging $18 a piece. Now, there's a real competition going on up here. My good friend, Joe, and he is a good friend, he's received contributions from 44 billionaires. Pete, on the other hand, he's trailing, Pete. You only got 39 billionaires contributing. So, Pete, we look forward to you. I know you're an energetic guy and a competitive guy to see if you can take on Joe on that issue. But what is not -- what is not a laughing matter, my friends, this is why three people own more wealth than the bottom half. This is why Amazon and other major corporations pay zero in federal taxes. We need to get money out of politics. We should run our campaigns on that basis.
This is related, sir. But there are estimated to be as This is what I would do. Day one, executive order, restore the P D many as 12 million undocumented immigrants in the legal status of 1.8 million young people in the DACA program. U.S., more than 2 million right here in California. If Day one, we change border policy so that federal agents will you have a chance to forge a bipartisan immigration never snatch babies from the arms of their mothers. Day one, day reform plan, would you insist on a path to citizenship one, we introduce bipartisan legislation, which will, in fact, be for all 12 million or just a segment of that population? comprehensive, which will result in a path toward citizenship for all of the 11 million who are undocumented. That is what the people of our country want. Trump thinks mistakenly that he is going to win re-election by dividing us up. We are going to win this election by bringing our people together -- black and white and Latino, Native American, Asian American. That's what this campaign is about. That's what America must be about. Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 28
Let's talk about how we -- excuse me. Let's talk about how we P A, R, I win an election, which is something everybody here wants to do, in terms of defeating the most dangerous president in American history. So let me tell you how you win it: You have the largest voter turnout in the history of America. And you don't have -- you don't have the largest voter turnout unless you create energy and excitement. And you don't create energy and excitement unless you are prepared to take on the people who own America and are prepared to speak to the people who are working in America. We need a progressive agenda -- Medicare for all, raising the minimum wage to a living wage, leading the world in combatting climate change, making public colleges and universities available to all...(interrupt) ... because we have free tuition, and canceling all student debt in this country.
We believe -- I believe in the concept of universality. And one of P R the crises in America today is people are sick and tired of filling out forms. So you're not eligible for the program today because you're at $150,000, but you lost your job, are you eligible? You get a better job, you're eligible. I think what we have to do is what we do with Social Security, what we do with public education. Donald Trump's kids can go to a public school. They should be able to go to a public school. What we need right now is a revolution in education. We have got to end this dysfunctional childcare system and make sure that every working-class person in this country can find high-quality, affordable childcare. We need to make public colleges and universities tuition-free. And by taxing billionaires and by taxing Wall Street, we will cancel all student debt in this country.
Senator Sanders, at least 22 transgender people were We need moral leadership in the White House. We need a N D killed in the United States this year, move of them president who will do everything humanly possible to end all transgender women of color. Each of you has said you forms of discrimination against the transgender community, would push for the passage of the Equality Act, a against the African-American community, against the Latino comprehensive LGBTQ civil rights bill. But if community, and against all minorities in this country. But above elected, what more would you do to stop violence and beyond providing the moral leadership of trying to bring our against transgender people? people together, what we also need for the transgender community is to make sure that health care is available to every Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 29
person in this country, regardless of their sexual orientation or their needs. And that is why I strongly support and have helped lead the effort for a Medicare for all single-payer program, which will provide comprehensive health care to all people, including certainly the transgender community.
Well, in all due respect to my -- Joe, Joe, you're also the guy who P R,A helped lead us into the disastrous war in Iraq. What we need to do is, I think, rethink -- and the Washington Post piece was very educational -- what we need to rethink is the entire war on terror. We have lost thousands of our own men and women, brave soldiers. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people have been killed abroad or forced to leave their countries. It is time right now that we bring this world together to try to end these endless wars and address the root causes which are causing these wars.
Senator Sanders, you do often point to your vote Well, only one person, my good friend, Barbara Lee, was right F D against the war in Iraq as evidence of your judgment on that issue. She was the only person in the House to vote on foreign policy, but you did vote for the war in against the war in Afghanistan. She was right. I was wrong. So Afghanistan. And as recently as 2015, you said you was everybody else in the House. But to answer your question, I supported a continued U.S. troop presence there. Was don't think you do what Trump does and make foreign policy that support a mistake? decisions based on a tweet at 3 a.m. in the morning or desert your long-time allies like the Kurds. I think you work with the international community. You remove all troops over a period of time, a short period of time, within one year.
So the question, Senator, is, if Congress rejects your Well, Tim, at a time when we're spending twice as much per N D plan and the American people are looking to you for capita on health care as any other nation, when 87 million people leadership on this issue, are there smaller specific are uninsured or underinsured, when 30,000 people are dying measures that you would take immediately to expand each year because they don't get to a doctor when they should, coverage and decrease costs as president? and when a half a million people are going bankrupt because of the dysfunctional and cruel system that we currently have, you know what? I think we will pass a Medicare for all single-payer system, and I will introduce that legislation in my first week in office. Now, to answer your question, I think when we go out to the American people and tell them that right now we have got to take on the greed and corruption of the pharmaceutical industry, Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 30
for example, which in some cases charges us 10 times more for the same exact drug as is charged in this country, when the American people understand that Medicare for all expands Medicare to cover home health care, dental care, eyeglasses, and hearing aids, and does it at a cost far, far lower than what some of my opponents are talking about, you know what? We're going to have the American people behind us. We will have Congress behind us.
Under Joe's plan, essentially we retain the status quo. (Interrupt) N R, I It is exactly true. (Interrupt) And but -- thank you. And, by the way, Joe, under your plan, you know, you asked me how are we going to pay for it? Under your plan, I'll tell you how we're paying for it right now. The average worker in America, their family makes $60,000 a year. That family is now paying $12,000 a year for health care, 20 percent of their income. Under Medicare for all, that family will be paying $1,200 a year, because we're eliminating the profiteering of the drug companies and the insurance companies and ending this byzantine and complex administration of thousands of separate health care plans.
That's right, we are going to increase personal taxes. But we're P R,A eliminating premiums, we're eliminating co-payments, we're eliminating deductibles, we're eliminating all out-of-pocket expenses, and no family in America will spend more than $200 a year on prescription drugs.
All right. My fight, Amy, is not with the governor of Kentucky. P R,A My fight and all of our fights must be with the greed and corruption of the pharmaceutical industry, with the greed and corruption of the insurance industry. These guys last year made $100 billion in profit and tens of millions of Americans cannot afford to go to a doctor tonight. The day has got to come -- and Joe is not talking about it, Amy is not talking about it -- the day has got to come, and I will bring that day about, when we finally say to the drug companies and the insurance companies, the function of health care is to provide it for all of our people in a Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 31
cost-effective way, not to make massive profits for the drug companies and the insurance companies.
Senator Sanders, forgiveness or a gift? Well, I can give out any one of four books that I wrote. But I F D think the gift that all of us need to give to the American people is a very, very different vision of the reality of the Trump administration. And the vision that we need to bring forth is to create a government and a nation based on love and compassion, not greed and hatred. We need a vision which says that in our great country, all of our people should be able to earn a decent standard of living, have health care, have the ability to send their kids to college, regardless of their income. So we need a new vision which brings our people together around an agenda that works for all, not the Trump vision of dividing us up to benefit the billionaire class. That's my vision.
14-Jan-20 Senator Sanders, why are you best prepared -- the best Yes, I think my record speaks to that, Wolf. In 2002, when the F D prepared person on this stage to be commander-in- Congress was debating whether or not we go into a war in Iraq, chief? invade Iraq, I got up on the floor of the House and I said that would be a disaster, it would lead to unprecedented levels of chaos in the region. And I not only voted against the war, I helped lead the effort against that war. Just last year, I helped, for the first time in the modern history of this country, pass a War Powers Act resolution, working with a conservative Republican, Mike Lee of Utah, which said that the war in Yemen, led by Saudi Arabia, was unconstitutional because Congress had not authorized it. We got a majority vote in the Senate. We got a majority vote in the House. Unfortunately, Bush vetoed that and that horrific war continues. I am able to work with Republicans. I am able to bring people together to try to create a world where we solve conflicts over the negotiating table, not through military efforts.
Senator Sanders, you have been attacking Vice Well, it's a little bit of a difference. On that particular vote, every P D President Biden's vote on the Iraq war, but you single member of the House, including myself, voted for it. Only recently acknowledged that your vote to authorize the Barbara Lee voted against it. But what I understood right away, war in Afghanistan was also a mistake. So you both in terms of the war in Iraq, the difference here is that the war in acknowledged mistakes. Why should the American Iraq turned out to be the worst foreign policy blunder in the Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 32
people trust your judgment more? modern history of this country. As Joe well knows, we lost 4,500 brave troops. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died. We have spent trillions of dollars on that endless war, money which should go into health care and education and infrastructure in this country. Joe and I listened to what Dick Cheney and George Bush and Rumsfeld had to say. I thought they were lying. I didn't believe them for a moment. I took to the floor. I did everything I could to prevent that war. Joe saw it differently.
Senator Sanders, in the wake of the Iran crisis, Iran's OK, I'm going to tell you, but before I tell you that, let me tell N D Ayatollah Khamenei has again called for all U.S. you something else. And that is -- and I don't know if my troops to be pulled out of the Middle East, something colleagues here will agree with me or not. Maybe they will. But you've called for, as well. Yet when American troops what we have to face as a nation is that the two great foreign last left Iraq, ISIS emerged and spread terror across policy disasters of our lifetimes were the war in Vietnam and the the Middle East and, indeed, around the world. How war in Iraq. Both of those wars were based on lies. And right would you prevent that from happening again? now, what I fear very much is we have a president who is lying again and could drag us into a war that is even worse than the war in Iraq. To answer your question, what we need to do is have an international coalition. We cannot keep acting unilaterally. As you know, the nuclear deal with Iran was worked on with a number of our allies. We have got to undo what Trump did, bring that coalition together, and make sure that Iran never gets a nuclear weapon.
Wolf, in America today, our infrastructure is crumbling. Half of N R our people are living paycheck to paycheck. Eighty-seven million people have no health care or are uninsured or underinsured. We got 500,000 people sleeping out on the streets tonight. The American people are sick and tired of endless wars which have cost us trillions of dollars. Our job is to rebuild the United Nations, rebuild the State Department, make sure that we have the capability of bringing the world together to resolve international conflict diplomatically and stop the endless wars that we have experienced.
Senator Sanders, you have said that new deal, the No, we can do much… (interrupt) The answer is we could do F D, I USMCA, quote, "makes some modest much better than a Trump-led trade deal. This deal -- and I think improvements," yet you are going to vote against it. the proponents of it acknowledge -- will result in the continuation Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 33
Aren't modest improvements better than no of the loss of hundreds of thousands of good-paying jobs as a improvements… (interrupt)... for the farmers and result of outsourcing. The heart and soul of our disastrous trade manufacturers who have been devastated here in agreements -- and I'm the guy who voted against NAFTA and Iowa? against permanent normal trade relations with China -- is that we have forced American workers to compete against people in Mexico, in China, elsewhere, who earn starvation wages, $1 or $2 an hour. Second of all, every major environmental organization has said no to this new trade agreement because it does not even have the phrase "climate change" in it. And given the fact that climate change is right now the greatest threat facing this planet, I will not vote for a trade agreement that does not incorporate very, very strong principles to significantly lower fossil fuel emissions in the world.
But, Senator Sanders, to be clear, the AFL-CIO The AFL-CIO does. The Machinists Union does not. And every F D supports this deal. Are you unwilling to compromise? environmental organization in this country, including the Sunrise Organization, who are supporting my candidacy, opposes it. So I happen to believe -- and I hope we will talk about climate change in a moment -- if we do not get our act together in terms of climate change, the planet that we're going to be leaving our kids and our children -- and our grandchildren will be increasingly unlivable and uninhabitable.
Well, I think that it is not so easy to put together new trade F R legislation. If this is passed, I think it will set us back a number of years. Senator Warren is right in saying we need to bring the stakeholders to the table, that -- it is the family farmers here in Iowa and in Vermont and around the country. That is the environmental community. That is the workers. Bottom line here is, I am sick and tired of trade agreements negotiated by the CEOs of large corporations behind doors.
Joe and I have a fundamental disagreement here, in case you P R haven't noticed. And that is NAFTA, PNTR with China, other trade agreements were written for one reason alone. And that is to increase the profits of large multi-national corporations. And the end result of those two, just PNTR with China, Joe, and NAFTA, cost us some 4 million jobs, as part of the race to the Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 34
bottom. I am sick and tired and will not tolerate, and we will use the power of the federal contracting system. If a corporation in America wants to shut down in Iowa or Vermont or any place else, and then they think they're going to get on line for our generous federal contract, they've got another thing going. We need some corporate responsibility here and we need to protect good-paying jobs in America, not see them go to China, Mexico, Vietnam, and all these other countries.
Let's now turn to -- let's now turn to an issue that's Well, as a matter of fact, I didn't say it. And I don't want to waste F D come up in the last 48 hours. Senator Sanders, CNN a whole lot of time on this, because this is what Donald Trump reported yesterday that -- and Senator Sanders, and maybe some of the media want. Anybody knows me knows Senator Warren confirmed in a statement, that in 2018 that it's incomprehensible that I would think that a woman cannot you told her that you did not believe that a woman be president of the United States. Go to YouTube today. There's could win the election. Why did you say that? a video of me 30 years ago talking about how a woman could become president of the United States. In 2015, I deferred, in fact, to Senator Warren. There was a movement to draft Senator Warren to run for president. And you know what, I said -- stayed back. Senator Warren decided not to run, and I then -- I did run afterwards. Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by 3 million votes. How could anybody in a million years not believe that a woman could become president of the United States? And let me be very clear. If any of the women on this stage or any of the men on this stage win the nomination, I hope that's not the case, I hope it's me. But if they do, I will do everything in my power to make sure that they are elected in order to defeat the most dangerous president in the history of our country.
So Senator Sanders -- Senator Sanders, I do want to That is correct. F D be clear here, you're saying that you never told Senator Warren that a woman could not win the election?
Well, just to set the record straight, I defeated an incumbent F D,R, I Republican running for Congress. (Interrupt)Nineteen-ninety. That's how I won, beat a republican congressman. Number two…(Interrupt)... of course, I do not think there's any debate up here…(interrupt)I beat an incumbent Republican congressman. Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 35
(Interrupt) Well, 30 years ago is 1990, as a matter of fact. But I don't know that that's the major issue of the day. I think what the major issue of the day is -- let's -- does anybody in their right mind think that a woman cannot be elected president? That's -- nobody believes that. Of -- Hillary Clinton got 3 million votes, more votes than Trump. So who believes that a woman can't win? Of course, a woman can win. But the real question is, how do we beat Trump? And the only way we beat Trump is by a campaign of energy and excitement and a campaign that has, by far, the largest voter turnout in the history of this country. And I believe that our campaign has the strongest grassroots movement...(interrupt) We have been endorsed by many grassroots organizations...(interrupt)That's why...
Senator Sanders, you have consistently refused to say Well, what I will tell you is Medicare For All, which will P D exactly how much your Medicare For All plan is guarantee comprehensive health care to every man, woman and going to cost. Don't voters deserve to see the price tag child, will cost substantially less than the status quo. Medicare before you send them a bill that could cost tens of For All will end the absurdity of the United States paying by far trillions of dollars? the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs and health care in general, while we have 87 million uninsured -- uninsured and underinsured, and while 30,000 people die each year. Under Medicare For All, one of the provisions we have to pay for it is a 4 percent tax on income, exempting the first $29,000. So the average family in America that today makes $60,000 would pay $1,200 a year, compared to that family paying $12,000 a year. We save money, comprehensive health care, because we take on the greed and the profiteering and the administrative nightmare that currently exists in our dysfunctional system.
Senator Sanders? Well, first of all, what Joe forgets to say is, when you leave the P R current system as it is, what you are talking about are workers paying on average 20 percent of their incomes for health care. That is insane. You've got 500,000 people going bankrupt because they cannot pay their medical bills. We're spending twice as much per capita on health care as do the people of any other country. Look, we have talked about health care for all -- in this country -- for over 100 years. Now is the time to take on the greed and corruption of the health care industry, of the drug Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 36
companies, and finally provide health care to all through a Medicare For All single payer program. It won't be easy, but that is what we have to do.
7-Feb-20 Senator Sanders, let me give you the chance to Because Donald Trump lies all the time. It doesn‘t matter what P D respond first. President Trump certainly thinks this Donald Trump says, it‘s a sad state of affairs, it really is. He will label socialism will work. At the State of the Union, say terrible things about Joe, he has [inaudible 00:02:32] ugly, he said, ―Socialism destroys nations. He‘s never disgusting things about Elizabeth, about Amy, about anybody going to let socialism destroy American healthcare.‖ else who was up here. But I think George, that at the end of the And before the Super Bowl, he joked was Sean day, the way we defeat Donald Trump and everybody up here by Hannity about your honeymoon in Moscow. Those the way, is united. No matter who wins this damn thing, we‘re all hits are going to keep coming if you‘re the nominee. going to stand together to defeat Donald Trump. I believe that the Why shouldn‘t Democrats be worried? way we beat Trump is by having the largest voter turnout in the history of this country. And that is appealing to working class people, who have given up on the political process because they don‘t believe that anybody is hearing their pain, perceiving that pain, feeling their pain. And we got to bring young people into the political process. I am very proud that in Iowa we won the popular vote by 6,000 votes. What was most significant, most significant, is we increased voter turnout for young people under 29 by over 30%. If we do that nationally, we‘re going to defeat Donald Trump.
But Senator, let me follow up there and then we‘ll That‘s true. And that‘s the disappointment and I think all of us F D,R move on. But back in Iowa, the turn out this year was probably could have done a better job in bringing out our about the same as it was in 2016. Far below what it supporters. But if there is a good spot, a good aspect about that was in 2008 when President Obama won. campaign, is that young people came out in higher numbers than they did during Obama‘s historic 2008 campaign. And if that happens nationally, we‘re going to win and defeat Trump.
Needless to say, I‘ve never said that, but let me tell you what I do P R say. The way you bring people together is by presenting an agenda that works for the working people of this country, not for the billionaire class. The way you bring people together, Republicans, independents, Democrats, progressives, conservatives, you raise the minimum wage to 15 bucks an hour. The way you bring people together is to make it clear that we‘re not going to give tax breaks to billionaires and large Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 37
corporations, they‘re going to start paying their fair share of taxes. That‘s what the American people want. And I‘ll tell you something else, the way you bring people together is by ending the international disgrace of this country being the only major nation on Earth not to guarantee healthcare to all people as a human right. And you bring people together by telling the pharmaceutical industry they‘re not going to charge us 0 times more for the same prescription drugs as the people in Canada that borders on New Hampshire. That‘s how you bring people together and you defeat Donald Trump.
Well, for a start, what the studies show, if we do what Joe wants, P R we‘ll be spending some $50 trillion on healthcare over the next 0 years. That‘s the status quo, Joe. That‘s what Health and Human Services says. [crosstalk 00:15:15] And what we have got to do Joe, and what we have got to do is understand, simple question, Joe, we are spending twice as much per capita on healthcare as do the people of any other country. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that the healthcare industry last year made $100 billion in profit. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that we are wasting $500 billion a year trying to administer thousands and thousands of different plans. What Medicare for All will do is save the average American substantial sums of money. Substantial, be much less expensive than your plan. And we will expand Medicare to include dental care, eyeglasses, hearing aides and home health care as well.
Look, at the end of the day, we got to ask ourselves a very simple N R question, whether it‘s healthcare in fact, or anything else. Why are we the only major country on earth that doesn‘t guarantee healthcare to all people? Pay the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs? Have 87 million people uninsured or under- insured? 30,000 die because they don‘t get to a doctor on time, and 500,000 people going bankrupt, for what reason? Because they have cancer or heart disease, or Alzheimer‘s. We got to ask that question, why is it why? Why have we been talking about healthcare in this country for a hundred years, and here is the answer. If you want real change in healthcare, at the end of the Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 38
day, you‘re going to have to take on the insurance companies, and tell them the function of healthcare is healthcare for all, not huge profits for the insurance companies. You‘re going to have to take on the drug companies, and their corruption, and their price fixing, and tell them, ―Sorry, we‘re not going to pay 0 times more for prescription drugs, than do the people of other country.‖ But at the end of the day, there‘s no way around it. You may want to nibble around the edges, but ultimately, you need to rally the American people to tell the drug companies, to tell Wall Street, to tell the insurance companies, to tell the fossil fuel industry this country belongs to all of us, not a handful of special interests.
Along with Elizabeth and Amy, we sat for two weeks listening to P R the impeachment process, and here‘s what I think the horror and the danger of what happened was not only the acquittal of Trump, who in fact committed impeachable offenses, and obstructed Congress. It is the precedent that it set. The precedent that it set. And what that precedent is about now is in the future, you‘re going to have presidents who say, ―Hey, governor, you want highway money? You better support me, or you‘re not going to get it.‖ Because I am the president, I can do anything I want. Hey, Congress, you want to investigate me? Don‘t be ridiculous. Who cares about the Congress? Who cares about the separation of powers? Who cares about the constitution of the president? I‘m the President of the United States. I have all of the power, and I‘m able to intimidate members of my own party. The saddest aspect of this whole thing, is you have Republicans in the Senate who knew better. They knew that Donald Trump is a crook. They knew that Donald Trump is a cheat, but they didn‘t have the guts, with the exception of Romney to vote against him. That is a sad day.
But, let me just say this. I think the question started off with P R Secretary Clinton‘s critique. I think, quite honestly, as we face one of the great political crises facing America, our job is to look forward and not back to 2016. And I hope that Secretary Clinton and all of us can come together, and move in that direction. Now, Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 39
second of all, in terms of Republicans, let me say…-in that direction. Now, second of all, in terms of Republicans, let me say that in my own great state of Vermont, if my memory is correct, Amy, I got 25% of the Republican vote. And in fact, there were periods when I was in the House of Representatives, a number of years where I passed more amendments on the floor of the House in a bipartisan way than any other member of the House and that is when you bring people together on an issue. There are many conservative Republicans, for example, who are concerned about civil liberties, at least they used to be concerned about civil liberties. There are Republicans, as you know, who are concerned about the high cost of prescription drugs. There are ways that we can work with Republicans on issues where we have a common basis.
Mr. Vice President, thank you, Senator Sanders, you Right. Look, here is the danger, David, there are very bad leaders P D, R have called this, ―assassinating a government all over the world. Kim Jong-un in North Korea is probably official.‖ You would not have ordered the strike. responsible for the death of hundreds of thousands of his people threatening all of Asia with nuclear weapons. You got Mohammad Bin Salman in Saudi Arabia who is a terrible murderer, who murdered Khashoggi in cold blood and dismembered his body. You have Putin in Russia who has been involved in political assassinations of his enemies. You got Xi in China who has put a million Muslims into concentration camps. You cannot go around saying you‘re a bad guy, we‘re going to assassinate you, and then you‘re going to have, if that happens, you‘re opening the door to international anarchy that every government in the world will then be subjected to attacks and assassination. What we have got to do, which Trump does not understand, is strengthen the State Department and our diplomatic capabilities, not just the military. What we have got to do is bring countries around the world together with our power and our wealth and say, you know what, let us sit down and work out our differences through debate and discussion at the UN, not through more and more war and the expenditures of trillions of dollars and the loss of God knows how many lives. Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 40
Let me say this if I might, like Joe and others, I also heard the P R arguments in terms of the war in Iraq from Bush, from Cheney, from John Bolton, from the whole administration. I listened very carefully and I concluded that they were lying through their teeth. And I not only voted against that war, but I help lead the opposition. And it saddens me so much. If you hear what I said, it‘s on YouTube, my fears about all the destabilization that would take place by the US invading Iraq. It‘s sad to me that, that is what happened. But let me just pick up on a point that Tom made, which is absolutely right. Trump wants to build a wall around America. The problem is if we are going to deal with issues like climate change, not only do we in America have to take on the greed of the fossil fuel industry, we have to lead the entire world. This is not an American issue. It‘s a global issue. We got to bring China and Russia and Brazil and Pakistan and India and every major country on earth into the fight against climate change. And here is my dream, maybe it‘s a radical dream, but maybe just may be given the crisis of climate change, the world can understand that instead of spending $1.8 trillion dollars a year collectively on weapons of destruction designed to kill each other, maybe we pool our resources and fight our common enemy, which is climate change.
Good evening candidates. New Hampshire is a I can Adam, and let me also say that in 1988 I probably lost a F D battleground, not just for presidential contenders but race for Congress, and we only have one Congress person in the also for top issues and that includes gun policy. whole state, because in 1988 I said that we should ban the sale Senator Sanders, for many voters in this Democratic and distribution of assault weapons in this country. That was 30 primary, your allure is about consistency when it years ago. Furthermore, I am very proud that today I have a D- comes to progressive issues you‘ve been on the right voting record from the NRA. And under my administration it side of them for a long time. One exception is gun will be the American people doing gun policy, not dictated by the rights. In the ‘90s when you were in Congress, you NRA. But to answer your question, I come, like New Hampshire, voted against background checks. You also voted from a very, very rural state. In Vermont until the last two years against a waiting period for purchase of a firearm. ago, we had virtually no gun control legislation at all and I Can you explain why you opposed these things that represented that perspective. The world has changed. In Vermont you now support? and in New Hampshire and all over this country, people are sickened by the mass shootings that we have seen and the gun violence that we have seen. The world has changed and my views have changed, and my view is right now we need universal Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 41
background checks, we end the gun show loophole, we end the so called straw man provision. We make certain that we end the sale and distribution of assault weapons in this country, and we go further. We go further, but at the bottom line is I will not be intimidated by the NRA. We‘re going to run the gun policy that the American people want.
Look, you asked the simple question, is there a litmus test for F R those of us up here? For me there is. I will never nominate any person to the Supreme Court or the federal courts in general who was not 100% pro Roe v. Wade. Number two, we have got a codify Roe v. Wade into legislation. Number three, we have to significantly expand funding for Planned Parenthood.
Let me just say, first of all, we have nine members of the Black P R, I Caucus in South Carolina supporting us, but more importantly, much of what Elizabeth said is absolutely correct. We have a racist society from top to bottom impacting healthcare, housing, criminal justice, education, you name it. And clearly this is an issue that must be dealt with. But in terms of criminal justice, what we have got to do is understand the system is broken, is racist. We invested our young people in jobs and education, not more jails and incarceration. We end the war on drugs, which has disproportionately impacted African Americans, Latinos, and Native Americans. We end private prisons and detention centers in America. (interrupt) And, excuse me, we also, most people don‘t know this. Tonight in America, 200,000 people are in jail without having been convicted of anything. (Interrupt) 200,000 people, because they can‘t afford the $500 for bail they need to get out of jail. That is outrageous, we‘re going to end cash bail in America.
Thank you Mr. Vice President. As you mentioned Well, I think what Senator Turner was talking about are some of P D South Carolina, three weeks from tomorrow they‘ll go the early actions of Vice President Biden, but no. Joe Biden is a to the polls to vote, black voters make up about 60% friend of mine, and I‘m not here to attack him. But what I would of the electorate there. Senator Sanders, several weeks say is that what we need in terms of the African American ago, Nina Turner, one of your national co-chairs, community is to understand that we have got to start investing published an op-ed piece that said Vice President big time in education, in healthcare. There is no excuse why Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 42
Biden has ―repeatedly betrayed black voters to side white families in America have 10 times more wealth than black with Republican lawmakers and undermine our families. No excuse that disproportionately, African Americans progress.‖ Senator Sanders, do you agree with her, are in jail compared to whites. No excuse for black women dying one of your most visible surrogates, that Vice in childbirth three times the rate that white women are doing as President Biden has repeatedly betrayed black voters? well.
Mayor Bloomberg has said we need evolution, not Well, it‘s a funny thing. There are millions of people who can N D, R revolution, taking you on directly. desire to run for office, but I guess if you‘re work $60 billion and you can spend several hundred million dollars on commercials, you have a slight advantage. That is nonsense. What we have got to do is have a nation in which we not only overturn Citizens United, we move to public funding of election. In terms of money in politics, our campaign, and I am enormously proud of this, unlike some of the folks up here, I don‘t have 40 billionaires, Pete, contributing to my campaign, coming from the pharmaceutical industry, coming from Wall Street, and all the big money interests. What we do have is we have now over six million contributions from one and a half million people averaging $18.50 a contribution. That is unprecedented in the history of American politics. If we want to change America, you‘re not going to do it be electing candidates who are going out to rich people‘s homes begging for money. The way we‘re going to do it is build a mass movement of working people who are prepared to stand up, not take money from these billionaires, not take money from Wall Street, but stand up to the drug companies and Wall Street. And if you want to be part of that political revolution, berniesanders.com.
Mayor Buttigieg, thank you. I want to turn to climate Yes. I mean, it‘s a disagreement, but if you look at every P D change and jobs here in America. President Trump environmental group in this country, including the Sunrise just signed the United States-Mexico-Canada organization, we‘re so proud to have their support, because we Agreement, many call it an updated NAFTA. But it have introduced the most comprehensive climate change does include incentives to make cars here in North proposal I think ever authored by a presidential candidate. But America and it does open Canadian markets for they are saying, what the environmental groups are saying, we‘re American dairy farmers. Senator Sanders, as we sit simply exporting fossil fuel emissions to Mexico. There is not here in New Hampshire tonight, both New Hampshire one word in that trade agreement … There is not one word in that senators Maggie Hassan and Senator Jeanne Shaheen trade agreement that deals with climate change and I don‘t know supported this, calling it a real win for workers and how in 2020 you can do that. Second of all, there is, in terms of Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 43
for farmers. You voted no, because you said you outsourcing of jobs, a major crisis in this country. Nobody believe it takes us back years on climate. Were the believes that under this Trump trade agreement that they will not senators from New Hampshire wrong? be continued and significant outsourcing of jobs into low wage Mexico, where workers are paid in some cases less than $2 an hour. So I think the right vote was the vote against that agreement. I don‘t apologize for that.
Well, the answer to your question of why we have the highest P D,R rate of childhood poverty of almost any major country on earth, disproportionately high for the African American community, by the way, is the same reason that we give massive trillion dollar tax breaks to the rich and large corporations. Same reason that we give tens of billions of dollars in subsidies and tax breaks to the fossil fuel industry, while half of our people are living paycheck to paycheck. The same reason that we have three people in America owning more wealth than the bottom half of America.
Bernie Sanders: (01:13:59) The same reason that we are the only major country on earth not to guarantee healthcare to all people as a human right. Same reason as to why we are paying in some cases 10 times more than other countries for prescription drugs, and that reason is that our priorities are determined by the 1% and by wealthy campaign contributors. Our priorities are determined by those who want to see the rich get richer and are turning their backs on the working families of this country. What is unique about our campaign, is we say, unashamedly, we are raising our campaign contributions, not from billionaires but from working class people. That our campaign is about the working families of this country for the working class of this country and that is the administration that we will run. It is time to take on the big money interests. It is time to change our national priorities. Thank you.
19-Feb-20 What hasn't changed: a majority of Democratic voters In order to beat Donald Trump, we're going to need the largest F D still say their top priority is beating President Trump. voter turnout in the history of the United States. Mr. Bloomberg Senator Sanders, the first question to you. Mayor had policies in New York City of stop and frisk which went after Bloomberg is pitching himself as a centrist who says African-American and Latino people in an outrageous way. That Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 44
he's best positioned to win in November. Why is your is not a way you're going to grow voter turnout. What our revolution a better bet? movement is about is bringing working-class people together, black and white and Latino, Native American, Asian American, around an agenda that works for all of us and not just the billionaire class. And that agenda says that maybe, just maybe, we should join the rest of the industrialized world, guarantee health care to all people as a human right, raise that minimum wage to a living wage of $15 bucks an hour, and have the guts to take on the fossil fuel industry, because their short-term profits are not more important than the future of this planet and the need to combat climate change. Those are some of the reasons we have the strongest campaign to defeat Donald Trump.
Senator -- Senator Sanders, are you polarizing? If speaking to the needs and the pain of a long-neglected working P D class is polarizing, I think you got the wrong word. What we are trying finally to do is to give a voice to people who after 45 years of work are not making a nickel more than they did 45 years ago. We are giving a voice to people who are saying we are sick and tired of billionaires like Mr. Bloomberg seeing huge expansions of their wealth while a half-a-million people sleep out on the street tonight. And that's what we are saying, Pete, is maybe it's a time for the working class of this country to have a little bit of power in Washington, rather than your billionaire campaign contributors.
We have over 10.6 million people on Twitter, and 99.9 percent of P R them are decent human beings, are working people, are people who believe in justice, compassion, and love. And if there are a few people who make ugly remarks, who attack trade union leaders, I disown those people. They are not part of our movement. But let me also say what I hope my friends up here will agree with is that if you look at the wild west of the internet, talk to some of the African-American women on my campaign. Talk to Senator Nina Turner. Talk to others and find the vicious, racist, sexist attacks that are coming their way, as well. So I would hope that all of us understand that we should do everything we possibly can to end the viciousness and ugliness on the internet. Our campaign is about issues. It's about fighting Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 45
for the working families and the middle class. It is not about vicious attacks on other people.
Well, Pete, if you want to talk to some of the women on my P R campaign, what you will see is the most ugly, sexist, racist attacks that are -- I wouldn't even describe them here, they're so disgusting.
And let me say something else about this, not being too paranoid. All of us remember 2016, and what we remember is efforts by Russians and others to try to interfere in our election and divide us up. I'm not saying that's happening, but it would not shock me.
I saw some of those tweets regarding the Culinary Workers Union. I have a 30-year 100 percent pro-union voting record. Do you think I would support or anybody who supports me would be attacking union leaders? It's not thinkable.
Senator Sanders, I'm going to stay on this topic, on No. Let me be very clear, two points. For a hundred years, from P D this issue with the Culinary Union. Obviously, their Teddy Roosevelt to Barack Obama, this country has been talking leaders are warning their members about -- that your about the need to guarantee health care for all people. And yet health care plan will take away their health care plan, today, despite spending twice as much per capita, Chuck, twice take away private insurance completely. There are as much as any other major country on Earth, we got 87 million some Democrats who like you a lot but worry that this who are uninsured or underinsured, we got over 60,000 people plan, Medicare for all, is going to take away private who die every year because they don't get to a doctor on time. insurance and that it goes too far. Are they right? We're getting ripped off outrageously by the greed and corruption of a pharmaceutical industry, which in some cases charges us 10 times more for the same drugs because of their price-fixing, 500,000 people go bankrupt every year because they can't afford medical bills. So let me be very clear to my good friends in the Culinary Workers Union, a great union. I will never sign a bill that will reduce the health care benefits they have. We will only expand it for them, for every union in the America, and for the working class of this country.
We'll get you in. We got a lot of people in here. (Interrupt)Some P R, I -- it's my turn, yeah?(Interrupt) Somehow or another, Canada can provide universal health care to all their people at half the cost. Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 46
U.K. can do it. France can do it. Germany can do it. All of Europe can do it. Gee-whiz, somehow or another, we are the only major country on Earth that can't do it. Why is that? And I'll tell you why. It's because, last year, the health care industry made $100 billion in profits. Pharmaceutical industry, top six companies, $69 billion in profit. And those CEOs are contributing to Pete's campaign and other campaigns up here. (Interrupt) So maybe it is finally time that we said as a nation, enough is enough, the function of a rational health care system is not to make the pharmaceutical industry and the drug companies rich. It is to provide health care to all people as a human right, not a privilege.
I want to talk about transparency here, because many Well, I'll tell you. Well, I think we did. Let me tell you what P D, I Democrats, including most of you on stage, have happened. First of all, you're right. And thank you, Las Vegas, criticized President Trump for his lack of for the excellent medical care I got in the hospital for two days. transparency. But, Senator Sanders, when you were And I think the one area maybe that Mayor Bloomberg and I here in Las Vegas in October, you were hospitalized share, you have two stents, as well. (Interrupt)Well, we both have with a heart attack. Afterwards, you pledged to make, two stents. It's a procedure that is done about a million times a quote, "all your medical records public." You've year. So we released the full report of that heart attack. Second of released three letters from your doctors, but you now all, we released the full -- my whole 29 years in the Capitol, the say you won't release anything more. What happened attending physician, all of my history, medical history. And to your promise of full transparency? furthermore, we released reports from two leading Vermont cardiologists who described my situation and, by the way, who said Bernie Sanders is more than able to deal with the stress and the vigor of being president of the United States. Hey, follow me around the campaign trail, three, four, five events today. See how you're doing compared to me.
Let's level. Let's level, Pete. Under your plan, which is a P R, I maintenance continuation of the status quo...(Interrupt) Can I finish? The average American today is paying $12,000 a year. That's what that family is paying, 20 percent of a $60,000 income, $12,000 a year, highest prices in the world for prescription drugs. Just the other day, a major study came out from Yale epidemiologist in Lancet, one of the leading medical publications in the world. What they said, my friends, is Medicare for all will save $450 billion a year, because we are Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 47
eliminating the absurdity of thousands of separate plans that require hundreds of billions of dollars of administration and, by the way, ending the $100 billion a year in profiteering from the drug companies and the insurance companies.
Can I add a word to this? You know, we talk about electability, N R and everybody up here wants to beat Trump, and we talk about stop and frisk, and we talked about the workplace that Mayor Bloomberg has established and the problems there. But maybe we should also ask how Mayor Bloomberg in 2004 supported George W. Bush for president, put money into Republican candidates for the United States Senate when some of us -- Joe and I and others -- were fighting for Democrats to control the United States Senate.
Maybe we can talk -- maybe we can talk about a billionaire N R saying that we should not raise the minimum wage or that we should cut Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. If that's a way to beat Donald Trump, wow, I would be very surprised.
We're going to stick to this topic. But, Senator What I tell these workers is that the scientists are telling us that if P R Sanders, I'm going to move to fracking. You want a we don't act incredibly boldly within the next six, seven years, total ban on natural gas extraction, fracking, in the there will be irreparable damage done not just in Nevada, not just next five years. The industry, obviously, supports a to Vermont or Massachusetts, but to the entire world. Joe said it lot of jobs around the country, including thousands in right: This is an existential threat. You know what that means, the battleground state of Pennsylvania. One union Chuck? That means we're fighting for the future of this planet. official there told the New York Times, quote, "If we And the Green New Deal that I support, by the way, will create end up with a Democratic candidate that supports a up to 20 million good-paying jobs as we move our energy system fracking ban, I'm going to tell my members that either away from fossil fuel to energy efficiency and sustainable you don't vote or you vote for the other guy." What do energy. This is a moral issue, my friends. We have to take the you tell these workers, it's supporting a big industry responsibility of making sure that the planet we leave our right now, sir? children and grandchildren is a planet that is healthy and habitable. That is more important than the profits of the fossil fuel industry.
You know, when we talk about a corrupt political system, bought N R? I by billionaires like Mr. Bloomberg, it manifests itself in a tax code in which not only is Amazon and many other major corporations, some owned by the wealthiest people in this Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 48
country not paying a nickel in taxes, we have the insane situation that billionaires today, if you can believe it, have an effective tax rate lower than the middle class. So maybe, just maybe...(Interrupt)You did. You and your campaign...(interrupt)You and your -- not me.(Interrupt)You and your campaign contributions electing people who represent the wealthy and the powerful, those are the folks...(Interrupt)Well, and Republicans, too. And George W. Bush, as well.
So, Senator Sanders, what did you mean that you I'll tell you what I mean. (Interrupt) We have a grotesque and F D, I don't think they should exist? immoral distribution of wealth and income. Mike Bloomberg owns more wealth than the bottom 125 million Americans. That's wrong. That's immoral. That should not be the case when we got a half a million people sleeping out on the street, where we have kids who cannot afford to go to college, when we have 45 million people dealing with student debt. We have enormous problems facing this country, and we cannot continue seeing a situation where, in the last three years, billionaires in this country saw an $850 billion increase in their wealth -- congratulations, Mr. Bloomberg -- but the average American last year saw less than a 1 percent increase in his or her income. That's wrong.
Thank you, it is my policy, and I'm very proud of that policy. All F R right? What we need to do to deal with this grotesque level of income and wealth inequality is make sure that those people who are working -- you know what, Mr. Bloomberg, it wasn't you who made all that money. Maybe your workers played some role in that, as well. And it is important that those workers are able to share the benefits, also. When we have so many people who go to work every day and they feel not good about their jobs, they feel like cogs in a machine. I want workers to be able to sit on corporate boards, as well, so they can have some say over what happens to their lives.
Senator Sanders, my next question is for you. Senator What was the result of that poll? Who was N D, I Sanders, our latest NBC News-Wall Street Journal winning?(Interrupt)The question was that I was winning, and I poll released yesterday, two-thirds of all voters said think by a fairly comfortable margin. Might mention that. But they were uncomfortable with a socialist candidate for here is the point. Let's talk about democratic socialism. Not Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 49
president. What do you say to those voters, sir? communism, Mr. Bloomberg. That's a cheap shot. Let's talk about -- let's talk about what goes on in countries like Denmark, where Pete correctly pointed out they have a much higher quality of life in many respects than we do. What are we talking about? We are living in many ways in a socialist society right now. The problem is, as Dr. Martin Luther King reminded us, we have socialism for the very rich, rugged individualism for the poor. (Interrupt) When Donald -- let me finish. When Donald Trump gets $800 million in tax breaks and subsidies to build luxury condominiums, that's socialism for the rich.(Interrupt)When Walmart -- we have to subsidize Walmart's workers who are on Medicaid and food stamps because the wealthiest family in America pays starvation wages, that's socialism for the rich. I believe in democratic socialism for working people, not billionaires, health care for all, educational opportunities for all.
25-Feb-20 Senator Sanders, we haven't had a national Well, you're right. The economy is doing really great for people P D unemployment rate this low for this long in 50 years. like Mr. Bloomberg and other billionaires. In the last three years, Here in South Carolina, the unemployment rate is last three years, billionaires in this country saw an $850 billion even lower. increase in their wealth. But you know what? For the ordinary American, things are not so good. Last year, real wage increases How will you convince voters that a Democratic for the average worker were less than 1 percent. Half of our socialist can do better than President Trump with the people are living paycheck to paycheck; 87 million Americans economy? have no health insurance or are underinsured; 45 million people are struggling with student debt; 500,000 people tonight are sleeping out on the street, including 30,000 veterans. That is not an economy that's working for the American people. That's an economy working for the 1 percent. We're going to create an economy for all, not just wealthy campaign contributors.
Oh, Mr. Bloomberg. Let me tell Mr. Putin, OK, I'm not a good N R friend of President Xi of China. I think President Xi is an authoritarian leader. And let me tell Mr. Putin, who interfered in the 2016 election, try to bring Americans against Americans, hey, Mr. Putin, if I'm president of the United States, trust me, you're not going to interfere in any more American elections.
You know, Pete mentioned -- I'm hearing my name mentioned a N R,I Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 50
little bit tonight. I wonder why. And maybe, you know, Pete mentions what the American people want. I will tell you, Pete, what the American people want, and, Joe, what the American people want. They don't want candidates to be running to billionaires for huge amounts of funding. (Interrupt) Pete has gotten funding from over 50 billionaires. (Interrupt) Joe, I think, has gotten a little bit more. What the American people want, by the way, and a lot of the issues we'll be discussing tonight are issues I raised four years ago: raising the minimum wage to a living wage, 15 bucks an hour. Making public colleges and universities tuition-free. And finally, doing what every other major country on Earth does, guaranteeing health care to all people as a human right through a Medicare for All, single-payer system.
Senator Sanders, the cost of your agenda. Yesterday, Over a 10-year period. (Interuptx2) How many hours do you P D,I you released information about how you will pay for have? (Interrupt)No, it's not the problem. All right, let's talk your major proposals, but not all of your details are about Medicare for all. I'm sure you're familiar with the new clear. You've proposed more than $50 trillion in new study that just came out of Yale University, published in Lancet spending. (Interrupt) You've said Medicare for all will magazine, one of the prestigious medical journals in the world. cost $30 trillion. (Interrupt) But you can only explain You know what it said? Medicare for all will lower health care how you'll pay for just about half of that. Can you do costs in this country by $450 billion a year and save 68,000 lives the math for the rest of us? of people who otherwise would have died. What we need to do is to do what every other major country on Earth does: guarantee health care to all people, not have thousands of separate insurance plans, which are costing us some $500 billion a year to administer. Our plan -- we have laid out options all over the place. One of the options is a 7.5 percent payroll tax on employers, which will save them substantial sums of money. Another...
OK. What the Health and Human Services have said in analyzing P R,A health care costs, what Yale -- recent Yale study has said is that your program would cost some $50 trillion over a 10-year period. We would continue to pay in some cases 10 times more for the same exact prescription drugs. What every study out there -- conservative or progressive -- says, Medicare for all will save Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 51
money. Ours will cost about $45 billion, not $60 trillion.
Thank you very much. Mayor Bloomberg has a solid and strong P R, I and enthusiastic base of support. The problem is, they're all billionaires. Now, if you look -- oh. On the other hand, of the last 50 polls that have been done nationally, Mr. Bloomberg, I beat Trump 47 of those 50 times. If you look at battleground states like Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, polling just done this Sunday... (Interrupt)... I beat Trump. And if you want to beat Trump, what you're going to need is an unprecedented...... grassroots movement of black and white and Latino, Native American and Asian, people who are standing up and fighting for justice.(Interrupt) That's what our movement is about.
I want to allow Senator Sanders to respond because Well, you know, Joe has voted for terrible trade agreements. No, N D you've gone after the insurance industry. You've taken no, no, no, no. Joe voted for the war in Iraq. My point was, not to on pharmaceutical companies. And you've taken on be -- I have cast thousands of votes, including bad votes. That big tech. Why did you vote repeatedly to give gun was a bad vote. I have today a D-minus voting record from the manufacturers a pass? NRA. Thirty years ago, I likely lost a race for the one seat for Congress in Vermont because 30 years ago, I opposed -- I supported a ban on assault weapons. Thirty years ago. Right now, my view is we need to expand background checks, end the gun show loophole, and do what the American people want, not what the NRA wants.
Thirty years ago, I supported a ban on assault weapons. Mike N R, I Bloomberg has started a very good organization, Moms Demand Actions. Congratulations. (Interrupt) They have credited me with gun sense, as you know.(Interrupt) Furthermore, furthermore, it is my view, the time is now, and Joe made this point, look, at the end of the day we need to rally the American people. Here is the good news. Because of all these disgusting and horrific mass shootings, the American people now understand that we must be aggressive on gun safety, not be dictated to by the NRA. And I am proud that I have a D-minus voting record from the NRA. If elected president, it will get worse than that.
This campaign, our campaign, our campaign is about changing N I American priorities. Instead of giving tax breaks to billionaires, Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 52
we're going to have high-quality, universal childcare for every family in this country. Because the psychologists tell us 0 to 4 are the most important years of human development. We are going to triple funding for low-income Title I schools, because kids' education should not depend upon the ZIP Code in which they live. We're going to make public colleges and universities tuition-free through a tax on Wall Street speculation. And we're going to move to make certain that no teacher in America earns less than $60,000 a year. (Interrupt) We want great teachers.
Yes, I'm very proud working with Congressman Jim Clyburn, P R South Carolina, that we increased funding for the Community Health Center Program by $11 billion as part of the Affordable Care Act, which now provides for 9 million Americans access to primary health care, dental care, mental health counseling, and low-cost prescription drugs, in that bill. We also put $2 billion into a program which would provide debt forgiveness for doctors, nurses, dentists, we have a major dental affordable crisis in this country, to make sure that they are practicing in underserved areas. The advantage of a Medicare for All health care program, because it's not driven by profits for the drug companies and the insurance companies, we will have health care for all people in all parts of this country.
Thank you. All right, look, you're right. We have a criminal P R justice system today that is not only broken, it is racist, got more people in jail than any other country on Earth, including China. And one of the reasons for that is a horrific war on drugs. So I do believe that, on day one, we will change the Federal Controlled Substance Act, which, if you can believe it, now equates heroin with marijuana. That's insane. We're going to take marijuana out of that and effectively legalize marijuana in every state in the country. What we are also going to do is move to expunge the records of those people who were arrested for possession of marijuana. And I'll tell you what else we're going to do. We're going to provide help to the African-American, Latino, Native American community to start businesses to sell legal marijuana, rather than let a few corporations control the legalized marijuana Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 53
market.
In the White House today -- in the White House today, we have a P D, R, I self-described "great genius" -- self-described -- and this "great genius" has told us that this Coronavirus is going to end in two months. April is the magical day that this great scientist we have in the White House has determined -- I wish I was kidding; that is what he said. What do we have to do? Whether or not the issue is climate change, which is clearly a global crisis requiring international cooperation, or infectious diseases like Coronavirus, requiring international cooperation, we have to work and expand the World Health Organization. Obviously, we have to make sure the CDC, the NIH, our infectious departments, are fully funded. This is a global problem. (Interrupt) We've got to work with countries all the over the world to solve it.
You praised -- it's in the same theme, sir. You've I have opposed authoritarianism all over the world and I was P D, I praised the Chinese Communist Party for lifting more really amazed at what Mayor Bloomberg just said a moment ago. people out of extreme poverty than any other country. He said that the Chinese government is responsive to the You also have a track record of expressing sympathy politburo, but who the hell is the politburo responsive to? Who for socialist governments in Cuba and in Nicaragua. elects the politburo? You have got a real dictatorship there. Of Can Americans trust that a democratic socialist course you have a dictatorship in Cuba. What I said is what president will not give authoritarians a free pass? Barack Obama said in terms of Cuba, that Cuba made progress on education. Yes, I think... Really? Really? Literacy programs are bad? (Interrupt) What Barack Obama said is they made great progress on education and health care. That was Barack Obama. Occasionally... (Interrupt) Excuse me, occasionally it might be a good idea to be honest about American foreign policy, and that includes the fact that America has overthrown governments all over the world in Chile, in Guatemala, in Iran. And when dictatorships, whether it is the Chinese or the Cubans do something good, you acknowledge that. But you don't have to trade love letters with them.
That is untrue, categorically untrue. (Interrupt) I have condemned F R, A, I authoritarianism, whether it is the people in Saudi Arabia that the United States government... (Interrupt) ... has loved for years. Cuba, Nicaragua, authoritarianism of any stripe is bad. (Interrupt) Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 54
But that is different than saying that governments occasionally do things that are good. That's what Barack Obama said.
Let us be clear, do we think health care for all, Pete, is some kind N R, I of radical communist idea? (Interrupt) Do we think raising the minimum wage to a living wage...(Interrupt)... do we think building the millions of units of affordable housing that we need... (Interrupt) ... do we think raising taxes on billionaires is a radical idea?(Interrupt) Do you think criminal justice reform is a radical idea? (Interrupt) Do you think immigration reform? The truth is, Pete... (Interrupt) ... the American people support my agenda. (Interrupt) That is why I am beating Trump in virtually every poll that is done, and why I will defeat him.
Can I respond? Amy used the word alienating. Hey, Amy, my P R favorability nationally I believe are the highest up here, as a matter of fact. All right. But the point is -- the point is the way we are going to beat Trump, which is what everybody up here wants, is we need a campaign of energy and excitement. We need to have the largest voter turnout in the history of the United States. We need to bring working people back in to the Democratic Party. We need to get young people voting in a way they have never done before. That is what our campaign is about.
Senator Sanders -- no, Senator Sanders, I have a Let me just -- the answer is, it's something that we would take P D, I question for you, sir. You're the frontrunner in this into consideration. (Interrupt) But here -- excuse me. But here is race. You're on the ballot in South Carolina. Mayor the point. I am very proud of being Jewish. I actually lived in Bloomberg, you'll understand that preamble in just a Israel for some months. But what I happen to believe is that, right second. If elected, Senator Sanders, you would be now, sadly, tragically, in Israel, through Bibi Netanyahu, you America's first Jewish president. You recently called a have a reactionary racist who is now running that country. And I very prominent, well-known American Israel lobby a happen to believe -- I happen to believe that what our foreign platform for, quote, "bigotry." What would you say to policy in the Mideast should be about is absolutely protecting the American Jews who might be concerned you're not, independence and security of Israel, but you cannot ignore the from their perspective, supportive enough of Israel? suffering of the Palestinian people. We have got to have a policy And specifically, sir, would you move the U.S. that reaches out to the Palestinians and the Americans. And in embassy back to Tel Aviv? answer to your question, that will come within the context of bringing nations together in the Mideast. Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 55
First, I'd like you each to tell us your -- the biggest Misconception -- and you're hearing it here tonight, is that the F D, I misconception about you. That's number one. Number ideas I'm talking about are radical. They're not. In one form or two, the South Carolina motto is this. "While I another, they exist in countries all over the world. Health care is breathe, I hope." So outside of politics, in no more a human right. We have the necessity, the moral imperative, to than 45 seconds or so, what is your personal motto, address the existential threat of climate change. Other countries your personal belief, your favorite quote that are doing that. We don't need more people in jail, represents you? disproportionately African-American, than any other country on earth -- not a radical idea. The motto, the saying that -- that moves me the most is from Nelson Mandela. And Mandela said, "Everything is impossible until it happens." And that means, if we have the guts to stand up to powerful special interests who are doing phenomenally well; if we can bring working people together, black and white and Latino, we can create a nation...(Interrupt)... where all people have a good standard of living.
Extra Information for Sanders Database: cell numbers match
Question posited to a different candidate or by a different candidate (Rebuttals/responses) Original addressee/questioner Network CNN Well, I'm right about this. We can create a universal health care system to give everyone basic health Delaney care for free, and I have a proposal to do it. But we don't have to go around and be the party of subtraction, and telling half the country, who has private health insurance, that their health insurance is illegal. My dad, the union electrician, loved the health care he got from the IBEW. He would never want someone to take that away. Half of Medicare beneficiaries now have Medicare Advantage, which is private insurance, or supplemental plans. It's also bad policy. It'll underfund the industry; many hospitals will close...(interrupt)... and it's bad policy. Senator Warren at the beginning of the night said that Democrats cannot bring -- cannot win the Klobuchar White House with small ideas and spinelessness. In the last debate, she said the politicians who are not supporting Medicare for All simply lack the will to fight for it. You do not support Medicare for All. Is Senator Warren correct? Do you just not lack the will to fight for it? Response: That is incorrect. I just have a better way to do this. And in one of my first debates, Jake, I was called a street fighter from the iron range by my opponent. And when she said it, I said thank you. So this is what I think we need to get done. We need the public option. That's what Barack Obama wanted, and it would bring health care costs down for everyone. And by the way, I just don't buy this. I've heard Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 56
some of these candidates say that it's somehow not moral if you -- not moral to not have that public option. Well, Senator Sanders was actually on a public option bill last year, and that was, Bernie, the Medicaid public option bill that Senator Schatz introduced. Clearly, this is the easiest way to move forward quickly, and I want to get things done. People can't wait. I've got my friend, Nicole, out there whose son was actually died trying to ration his insulin as a restaurant manager. And he died because he didn't have enough money to pay for it. It is time to stop worrying about what the Republicans will say. Look, if -- If it's true that if we Buttigieg/Williamson embrace a far-left agenda they're going to say we're a bunch of crazy socialists. If we embrace a conservative agenda, you know what they're going to do? They're going to say we're a bunch of crazy socialists. So let's just stand up for the right policy, go out there and defend it. That's the policy I'm putting forward, not because I think it's the right triangulation between Republicans here and Democrats there -- because I think it's the right answer for people like my mother-in- law who is here -- whose life was saved by the ACA, but who is still far too vulnerable to the fact that the insurance industry does not care about her -
So the bill that Senator Sanders drafted, by definition will lower quality in healthcare, because it says ? specifically that the rates will be the same as current Medicare rates. And the data is clear, Medicare does not cover the cost of healthcare, it covers 80 percent of the costs of healthcare in this country. And private insurance covers 120 percent, so if you start underpaying all the healthcare providers, you're going to create a two tier market where wealthy people buy their healthcare with cash, and the people who are forced -- like my dad, the union electrician --(Interrupt)Will have that healthcare plan taken away from him --(Interrupt)They will be forced into an underfunded system
Yes. And right now, if you want to come into the country, you should at least ring the doorbell. We Ryan have asylum laws. I saw the kids up in Grand Rapids, not far from here. It is shameful what's happening. But Donald Trump is doing it. And even if you decriminalize, which we should not do, you still have statutory authority. The president could still use his authority to separate families. So we've got to get rid of Donald Trump. But you don't decriminalize people just walking into the United States. If they're seeking asylum, of course, we want to welcome them. We're a strong enough country to be able to welcome them. And as far as the healthcare goes, undocumented people can buy healthcare too. I mean everyone else in America is paying for their healthcare. I think - I don't think it's a stretch for us to ask undocumented people in the country to also pay for healthcare.
I'm saying the policies of -- this notion that you're going to take private insurance away from 180 Hickenlooper million Americans who, many of them don't want to give -- many of them do want to get rid of it, but some don't -- many don't. Or you're going to -- the Green New Deal make sure that every American's guaranteed a government job if they want, that is a disaster at the ballot box, you might as well FedEx the election to Donald Trump. I think we've got to focus on where Donald Trump is failing, you know, the world malpractice, and this is interesting -- I always thought it was doctors or lawyers, Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 57
it's -- you know negligent, improper, illegal professional activity for doctors, lawyers or public officials, Google it, check it out. Donald Trump is malpractice personified, we've got to point that out. Why is it soybean farmers in Iowa need 10 good years to get back to where they were 2 years ago? Where's the small manufacturing jobs that are supposed to come back? Why are we lurching from one international crisis to another? All things that he promised American voters, we've got to focus on that -- and the economy, and jobs, and training, so that we can promise a future for America that everybody wants to invest it? When we created Social Security, we didn't say pensions were illegal, right? We can have big ideas Delaney to transform the lives. I mean, I started two companies and took them public before I was 40. I'm as big of a dreamer and an entrepreneur as anyone. But I also believe we need to have solutions that are workable. Can you imagine if we tried to start Social Security now but said private pensions are illegal? That's the equivalent of what Senator Sanders and Senator Warren are proposing with health care. That's not a big idea. That's an idea that's dead on arrival. That will never happen. So why don't we actually talk about things, big ideas that we can get done? The stakes are too high. Well, if we get our act together, we won't have to worry about it. I -- my plan is to create a chief Ryan manufacturing officer so we could actually start making things in the United States again, that would pull the government, the Department of Energy, Department of Transportation, work with the private sector, work with investors, emerging tech companies, to dominate the electric vehicle market. China dominates it now, 50 percent to 60 percent. I want us to dominate the battery market, make those here in the United States and cut the workers in on the deal. The charging stations, solar panels, same thing; China dominates 60 percent of the solar panel market. So this person will work in the White House, report directly to me, and we're going to start making things again. But you cannot get there on climate unless we talk about agriculture. We need to convert our industrial agriculture system over to a sustainable and regenerative agriculture system...(interrupt)... that actually sequesters carbon...(interrupt)... into the soil. And you can go ask -- you can go ask Gabe Brown and Allen Williams, who actually make money off of regenerative agriculture. So, we can move away...(interrupt)... from all the subsidies that we're giving the farmers. They haven't made a profit in five years. And we could start getting good food into our schools and into our communities. And that's going to drive health care down. That's another part of the health care conversation...(interrupt)... that we didn't even have. How do we start talking about health...(interrupt)... instead of just disease care?
Who - oh, no, I - I think Democrats often, when they're saying, oh, these fossil fuel industries, these Bullock workers, those coal miner workers. Look, the world's changing. We got to make a change, but I think Democrats often sound like the people that, as Congressman Ryan would say, shower at the end of the day, that they're part of the problem. And far too many communities are being left behind, as we make this transition. (interrupt)Look, we're having this discussion, and we can talk about competing plans (ph)
Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 58
You know, the question was about tariffs. And they're a huge mistake. They constitute the largest tax O'Rourke increase on the American consumer, hitting the middle class and the working poor especially hard, and farmers in Iowa and across the country are bearing the brunt of the consequences. When have we ever gone to war, including a trade war, without allies and friends and partners? As president, we will hold China accountable, but we will bring our allies and friends, like the European Union, to bear, and we'll also negotiate trade deals that favor farmers and American workers and protect human rights and the environment and labor, not just here in the United States...
I don't care how old you are. I care about your vision. But I do think it matters that we have a new Buttigieg generation of leaders stepping up around the world, leaders like the... I actually think it's good that the prime minister of New Zealand's gotten a lot of attention in Democratic debates. She's masterful. She is younger than I would be when I take office. This is the kind of trend America might be leading, instead of following, but only if it's actually backed by the right vision. And we can have great presidents at any age. What I will say is we need the kind of vision that's going to win. We cannot have a vision that amounts to back to normal. Because the only reason we got this president is that normal didn't work. We have to be ready to take on this president and, by the way, something that hasn't been talked about as much tonight, take on his enablers in Congress. You know, when...... when David Duke -- when David Duke ran for Congress -- ran for governor, the Republican Party, 20 years ago, ran away from him. Today they are supporting naked racism in the White House, or at best silent about it. And if you are watching this at home and you are a Republican member of Congress, consider the fact that, when the sun sets on your career and they are writing your story, of all the good and bad things you did in your life, the thing you will be remembered for is whether, in this moment, with this president, you found the courage to stand up to him or you continued to put party over country. MSNBC
Vice President, would you like to sing a torch song?*** Biden
And I feel very strongly that families ought to be able to have this choice. I think that's what the Bennet American people want. I believe it will get us there quickly. There are millions of people in America that do not have health insurance today because they can't. They're too wealthy. Wealthy? They make too much money to be on Medicaid. They can't afford health insurance. When Senator Sanders says that Canada is single payer, there are 35 million people in Canada. There are 330 million people in the United Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 59
States, easily the number of people on a public option that -- it could easily be 35 million. And for them, it would be Medicare for all, as Mayor Buttigieg says. But for others that want to keep it, they should be able to keep it. And I think that will be the fastest way to get where we need to go. Fifteen seconds, if you could, if you wish to answer. Should someone who is here without Biden documents, and that is his only offense, should that person be deported?
So are there significant ways you can cut carbon emissions if you have to do it with no support from Biden Congress? The answer is yes. Number one, in our administration, we built the largest wind farm in the world, the largest solar energy facility in the world. We drove down the price, competitive price of both of those renewable energy -- renewable sources. I would immediately insist that we in fact build 500,000 recharging stations throughout the United States of America, working with governors, mayors and others, so that we can go to a full electric vehicle future by the year 2020 -- by the year 2030. I would make sure that we invested $400 million in new science and technology, to be the exporter not only of the green economy, but economy that can create millions of jobs. But I would immediately join the Paris Climate Accord. I would up the ante in that accord, which it calls for, because we make up 15 percent of the problem; 85 percent of the world makes up the rest. And so we have to have someone who knows how to corral the rest of the world, bring them together and get something done, like we did in our administration.
Because once we -- once Bush abused that power, what happened was, we got elected after that. I ? made sure -- the president turned to me and said, Joe, get our combat troops out of Iraq. I was responsible for getting 150,000 combat troops out of Iraq, and my son was one of them. I also think we should not have combat troops in Afghanistan. It's long overdue. It should end. And, thirdly, I believe that you're not going to find anybody who has pulled together more of our alliances to deal with what is the real stateless threat out there. We cannot go it alone in terms of dealing with terrorism. So I would eliminate the act that allowed us to go into war, and not -- the AUMF, and make sure that it could only be used for what its intent was, and that is to go after terrorists, but never Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 60
do it alone. That's why we have to repair our alliances. We put together 65 countries to make sure we dealt with ISIS in Iraq and other places. That's what I would do. That's what I have done. And I know how to do it. ABC Senator Klobuchar, you said in your opening statement you don't -- you want to represent the people Klobuchar stuck in the middle of the extremes. Who represents the extreme on this stage?*** As a matter of fact, they will in our bill.
Senator Harris, how would your trade policy differ from President Obama's? Well, first of all, I have Harris no criticism of that more than just looking at where we are now, which is we've got a guy in the White House who has been erratic on trade policy. He conducts trade policy by tweet, frankly born out of his fragile ego. It has resulted in farmers in Iowa with soybeans rotting in bins, looking at bankruptcy. When we look at this issue, my trade policy, under a Harris administration, is always going to be about saying, we need to export American products, not American jobs. And to do that, we have to have a meaningful trade policy. I am not a protectionist Democrat. Look, we need to sell our stuff. And that means we need to sell it to people overseas. That means we need trade policies that allow that to happen. You asked earlier about China. It's a complicated relationship. We have to hold China accountable. They steal our products, including our intellectual property. They dump substandard products into our economy. They need to be held accountable. We also need to partner with China on climate and the crisis that that presents. We need to partner with China on the issue of North Korea. I am on -- and I think the only person on this stage -- the Senate Intelligence Committee and the Senate Homeland Security Committee. We need a partner on the issue of North Korea. But the bottom line is this. Donald Trump in office on trade policy, you know, he reminds me of that guy in "The Wizard of Oz," you know, when you pull back the curtain, it's a really small dude?
Senator Warren, to use Mr. Yang's term, are you just jumping into bed with teachers unions?*** Warren
CNN Hold on, sorry, just to follow up. Mr. Vice President, as you said, your son, Hunter, today gave an Biden interview, admitted that he made a mistake and showed poor judgement by serving on that board in Ukraine. Did you make a mistake by letting him? You were the point person on Ukraine at the time. You can answer. I don't think the American people are wrong when they say that what they want is a choice. And the Buttigieg choice of Medicare for all who want it, which is affordable for everyone, because we make sure that the subsidies are in place, allows you to get that health care. It's just better than Medicare for all whether you want it or not. And I don't understand why you believe the only way to deliver Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 61
affordable coverage to everybody is to obliterate private plans, kicking 150 million Americans off of their insurance in four short years, when we could achieve that same big, bold goal -- and once again, we have a president -- we're competing to be president for the day after Trump. Our country will be horrifyingly polarized, even more than now, after everything we've been through, after everything we are about to go through, this country will be even more divided. Why unnecessarily divide this country over health care when there's a better way to deliver coverage for all?
CNN Thank you, Congressman. Senator Harris, you want to hold the drug manufacturers that fueled the Harris, Castro crisis accountable. Are you in favor of sending those drug company executives to jail? HARRIS: I am. And I will tell you, as a former prosecutor, I do think of this as being a matter of justice and accountability, because they are nothing more than some high-level dope dealers. They have been engaged... And I've seen it happen before. I've taken on the pharmaceutical companies when I was attorney general of California and led the second largest Department of Justice. I've seen what they do. The biggest pharmaceutical companies, the eight biggest pharmaceutical companies and insurance companies last year profited $72 billion on the backs of people like the families that we are talking about that have been overwhelmed by this crisis, which is a public health epidemic. And they knew what they were doing. They were marketing false advertising. They knew what they were pushing in communities and states like Ohio, without any concern about the repercussions because they were profiting and making big bucks. And, yes, they should be held accountable. This is a matter of justice. And so as president of the United States, I would ensure that the United States Department of Justice, understand that you want to deal with who is really a criminal? Let's end mass incarceration and end that failed war on drugs, and let's go after these pharmaceutical companies for what they've been doing to destroy our country and states like Ohio. LACEY: Thank you, Senator. Secretary Castro, are you in favor of sending those drug company executives to prison? Please respond. CASTRO: Yes, I am. They need to be held accountable, not only financially, but also with criminal penalties. And, you know, you can draw a straight line between making sure that we hold executives accountable, whether it's these drug manufacturers or Wall Street executives that should have been held accountable a decade-and-a-half ago.
Congressman O'Rourke, you say you're not sure if it's appropriate for a president to designate which O'Rourke CNN companies should be broken up. So what's the proper level of oversight here? O'ROURKE: Yeah, we need to set very tough, very clear, transparent rules of the road, the kind of rules that we do not have today, that allow these social media platforms, where we, the people, have become the product, to abuse that public trust, and to do so at extraordinary profits. Right now, we treat them functionally as a utility, when, in reality, they're more akin to a publisher. They curate the content that we see. Our pictures and personal information that they share with others, we would allow no publisher to do what Facebook is doing, to publish that ad that Senator Warren has rightfully called out, that CNN has refused to air because it is untrue and tells lies about the vice president, treat them like the Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 62
publisher that they are. That's what I will do as president. And we will be unafraid to break up big businesses if we have to do that, but I don't think it is the role of a president or a candidate for the presidency to specifically call out which companies will be broken up. That's something that Donald Trump has done, in part because he sees enemies in the press and wants to diminish their power. It's not something that we should do. So tough rules of the road, protect your personal information, privacy, and data, and be fearless in the face of these tech giants. If you eliminated the entire Pentagon, every single thing, plane, ship, troop, the buildings, everything, Biden satellites, it would get you -- it would pay for a total of four months. Four months. Where do you get the rest? Where does it come from?
MSNBC/Washington Post
Look, I would not direct my Justice Department like this president does. I'd let them make their Biden independent judgment. I would not dictate who should be prosecuted or who should be exonerated. That's not the role of the president of the United States. It's the attorney general of the United States, not the president's attorney, private attorney. And so I would -- whatever was determined by the attorney general I supported, that I appointed, let them make an independent judgment. If that was the judgment that he violated the law and he should be, in fact, criminally prosecuted, then so be it. But I would not direct it. And I don't think it's a good idea that we mock -- that we model ourselves after Trump and say lock him up. Look, we have to bring this country together. Let's start talking civilly to people and treating -- you know, the next president starts tweeting should -- anyway. Look, it's just -- look, it's about civility. We have to restore the soul of this country. And that's not who we are, that's not who we've been, that's not who we should be. Follow the law, let the Justice Department make the judgment as to whether or not someone should be prosecuted, period. I want to bring in Mr. Steyer on this. You've made climate change a central point of your political Steyer, Biden career. To this issue of making change -- changes that last, making changes that are permanent, could you address that, sir?
Senator Klobuchar, just to follow up, would you go against the Saudis, even though that would Klobuchar potentially help Iran, their adversaries? Senator Warren, I'm going to push you on this a little bit for a specific answer to the question. Warren Governor John Bel Edwards in Louisiana is an anti-abortion governor who has signed abortion restrictions in Louisiana. Is there room for him in the Democratic Party with those politics? WARREN: I have made clear what I think the Democratic Party stands for. I'm not here to try to drive anyone out of this party. I'm not here to try to build fences. But I am here to say, this is what I Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 63
will fight for as president of the United States. The women of America can count on that.
PBS/Washington Post
My question to you, Mr. Vice President, is what is your argument to the voter watching this debate Biden tonight who may not like everything President Trump does but they really like this economy and they don't know why they should make a change. Vice President Biden, I'd like to ask you. Three consecutive American presidents have enjoyed stints Biden of explosive economic growth due to a boom in oil and natural gas production. As president, would you be willing to sacrifice some of that growth, even knowing potentially that it could displace thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of blue-collar workers in the interest of transitioning to that greener economy? The Democratic Party relies on black, Hispanic, and Asian voters, but you are the only candidate of Yang color on the stage tonight, and the entire field remains overwhelmingly white. What message do you think this sends to voters of color? Continuation Yang
I did not come here to listen to this argument. I came here to make a case for progress. And I have Klobuchar never even been to a wine cave. I've been to the wind cave in South Dakota, which I suggest you go to.
So what is making a case for progress about? That is what unites us up here instead of what divides us, which is campaign finance reform. That means passing a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United. It means making the first bill we pass when I am president will be H.R. 1, which is the ethics reform passed in the House, which is currently sitting on Mitch McConnell's desk, along with 400 bills. And if you don't think we can get this done, well, we can, but only if we win this election big.
I have been -- I certainly respect your military experience. That's not what this is about. This is about Buttigieg, Klobuchar choosing a president. And I know my view of this is I know you ran to be chair of the Democratic National Committee. That's not something that I wanted to do. I want to be president of the United States. And the point is, we should have someone heading up this ticket that has actually won and been able to show that they can gather the support that you talk about of moderate Republicans and independents, as well as a fired-up Democratic base, and not just done it once, I have done it three times. I think winning matters. I think a track record of getting things done matters. And I also think showing our party that we can actually bring people with us, have a wider tent, have a bigger Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 64
coalition, and, yes, longer coattails, that matters. BUTTIGIEG: I got to respond to that. I got to respond to that. Senator, I know that, if you just go by vote totals, maybe what goes on in my city seems small to you. If you want to talk about the capacity to win, try putting together a coalition to bring you back to office with 80 percent of the vote as a gay dude in Mike Pence's Indiana. KLOBUCHAR: Again, I would -- Mayor, if you -- if you had won in Indiana, that would be one thing. You tried and you lost by 20 points. I'm sorry. That's just the math Mayor Buttigieg, your plan offers free or discounted public college only to families making up to Buttigieg $150,000 a year. Do you think Senator Warren's plan offers free college to too many families?
Vice President Biden, let's turn now to Afghanistan. Confidential documents published last week by Biden the Washington Post revealed that for years senior U.S. officials misled the public about the war in Afghanistan. As vice president…(interrupt)Yes, sir, Afghanistan. As vice president, what did you know about the state of the war? And do you believe that you were honest with the American people about it? (Biden answered) then further asked: In that Washington Post report, there's a senior national security official who said that there was constant pressure from the Obama White House to produce figures showing the troop surge was working, and I'm quoting from the report here, "despite hard evidence to the contrary." What do you say to that? Since 2009, go back and look. I was on the opposite side of that with the Pentagon. The only reason I can speak to it now is because it's been published. It's been published thoroughly. I'm the guy from the beginning who argued that it was a big, big mistake to surge forces to Afghanistan, period. We should not have done it. And I argued against it constantly.
I know. So, look, it covers everybody. It's realistic. And most importantly, it lets you choose what Biden you want. Here you have 160 million people who negotiated their health care plans with their employer, like many of you have. You may or may not like it. If you don't like it, you can move into the public option that I propose in my plan. But if you like it, you shouldn't have -- you shouldn't have Washington dictating to you, you cannot keep the plan you have.
OK, that's true. I'll say this. First of all, Bernie, I promise, when I am your president, I will get our Klobuchar pharmaceutical bills done. And we have worked together on this time and time again. And I agree with you on that. But where I disagree is, I just don't think anyone has a monopoly on bold ideas. I think you can be progressive and practical at the same time. That is why I favor a public option, which is a nonprofit option, to bring the cost down. And, yes, it does bring the costs down immediately for 13 million people, and then we'll expand coverage to 12 million people. But here's the political problem. This fight that you guys are having isn't real. Your fight, Bernie, is not with me or with Vice President Biden. It is with all those -- bunch of those new House members, not everyone by any means, that got elected in that last election in the Democratic Party. It is with the new governor, Democratic governor of Kentucky, that wants to build on Obamacare. And the way I look Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 65
at it, if you want to bridge -- build -- if you want cross a river over some troubled waters, you build a bridge, you don't blow one up. And I think that we should build on the Affordable Care Act.
CNN
We can continue to remain engaged without having an endless commitment of ground troops. But Buttigieg what's going on right now is the president's actually sending more. The very president who said he was going to end endless war, who pretended to have been against the war in Iraq all along -- although we know that's not true -- now has more troops going to the Middle East. And whenever I see that happen, I think about the day we shipped out and the time that was set aside for saying goodbye to family members. I remember walking with a friend of mine, another lieutenant I trained with, as we walked away, and his one-and-a-half-year-old boy was toddling after him, not understanding why his father wasn't turning back to scoop him up. And it took all the strength he had not to turn around and look at his boy one more time. That is happening by the thousands right now, as we see so many more troops sent into harm's way. And my perspective is to ensure that that will never happen when there is an alternative as commander-in-chief.
I do. I wasn't here. I haven't been in Congress long enough to have voted against NAFTA, but I led Warren the fight against the trade deal with Asia and the trade deal with Europe, because I didn't think it was in the interests of the American people, the American workers, or environmental interests. But we have farmers here in Iowa who are hurting. And they are hurting because of Donald Trump's initiated trade wars. We have workers who are hurting because the agreements that have already been cut really don't have enforcement on workers' rights. This new trade deal is a modest improvement. Senator Sanders himself has said so. It will give some relief to our farmers. It will give some relief to our workers. I believe we accept that relief, we try to help the people who need help, and we get up the next day and fight for a better trade deal. We need a coherent trade policy. We need a policy that actually helps our workers, our farmers. We need them at the table, not just to trade policy written for big, international companies. I'm ready to have that fight, but let's help the people who need help right now. There will be no trade agreements signed in my administration without environmentalists and labor at Biden the table. And there will be no trade agreement until we invest more in American workers. We should be putting our money and our effort and our time in preparing American workers to compete in the 21st Century on the high-tech side, dealing with all artificial intelligence. We should be focusing on equipping American workers to do that. And by the way, the idea -- I don't know that there's any trade agreement that the senator would ever think made any sense, but the problem is that 95 percent of the customers are out there. So we better figure out how we begin to write the rules of the road, not Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 66
China.
Klobuchar: And finally, every single person... (Interrupt)... that I have beaten, my Republican Klobuchar, Warren opponents, have gotten out of politics for good. And I think -- I think that sounds pretty good. I think that sounds pretty good with the guy we have in the White House right now. Warren: When? (Interrupt)Thirty years ago. (Interrupt) Wasn't it 30 years ago? (Interrupt) And I said I was the only one who's beaten an incumbent Republican in 30 years.
ABC/from blog
(Buttigieg) Or trying to unite this country at a moment when we need that kind of unification, when Buttigieg our nominee is dividing people with a politics that says, if you don‘t go all the way to the edge, it doesn‘t count. A politics that says, it‘s my way or the highway. eorge S.: Are you talking about Senator Sanders? Buttigieg: Yes. (Biden)I think that was on CBS. He said, ‖ We‘ll find out.‖ Or something to that effect. Imagine Biden you‘re going to unite the country walking into the Congress, ―I got this bill. It‘s going to require Medicare for everybody. I can‘t tell you how much it‘s going to cost. We‘ll find out later and it‘s likely to be double whatever … everything we spent in the federal government.‖ Who do you think is going to get that passed? I busted my neck getting Obamacare passed, getting every Democratic vote. I know how hard it is.
(Yang)There are of course limits, and you have to see what the facts are on the ground after you Yang assume office, but the fact is, if you look around the world, the countries that have thrown past presidents into jail, have generally been developing countries, and unfortunately that‘s a pattern that once you establish, is very, very hard to break. What‘s a more American tradition? We move the country forward. We don‘t focus on the mistakes of the leaders that are leaving office. Most Americans do not care about what a particular individual did, so much as they care about their family‘s wellbeing, their community, their town. That‘s where Americans focus wants. They want the American president. They want the present. Of course, the American president, sorry about that. They want the president to be focused on that, and that‘s where our attention should be. We should not fall into a pattern that has been disastrous in other countries. Moderator: Senator, just a quick yes or no. Do you think that Senator Sanders will be able to get Klobuchar Republican support in order to pass his bills? Klobuchar: That, I don‘t know. I know we did on that bill, but the point is, I think we‘re better off with someone that has the receipts. Someone that has actually won big time with Republicans and independents, and I‘m the only one up on this stage, you Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 67
can check it out, that has consistently won in red congressional districts. Not once, not twice, but three times. And when I did this, I didn‘t just do it for me. I led a ticket. I‘ve flipped the state house every single time, because I have a way of working with people, that I think should be valued here as we look at these candidates, and it‘s one of the reasons that I got the New York Times endorsement, along with Elizabeth, and that I got the endorsements of the three major papers here in New Hampshire, which is the Union Leader, the Seacoast papers, and the Keene Sentinel. I think that matters. Read those editorials, and you will get a sense of what I‘m about
(Biden)And it‘s not about making sure we‘re policeman of the world. The only way not to become Biden, Steyer the policeman of the world is to have allies who will join us in dealing with failed States and terrorism. And it has to be done jointly by a whole lot of people and it doesn‘t require large number of US troops, and I‘ve never said that.
(Biden) That‘s why it‘s so important we must win back the United States Senate this time out. And Biden that‘s why as you all look at it up here in New Hampshire and around the world, excuse me, around the country, you have to ask yourself, who is most likely to help get a Senator elected in North Carolina, Georgia? Who can win Florida, Pennsylvania, Minnesota? Who can do that? Because you got to be able to win those… Well, you can. I agree. But here‘s the point. You‘ve got to be able to, you‘ve got to be able to not just win, you‘ve got to bring along a United States Senate or this becomes moot. (Biden) I‘m asking you to join me and join in the support I have from the overwhelming number of Biden, Steyer, Warren the members of that Black Caucus. I have more support in South Carolina in the Black Caucus and the black community than anybody else. Double what you have, or anybody else here.
Cokie loved the New Hampshire primary, and she asked the candidates in this Republican debate, Yang, Buttigieg, Warren, how will we overcome the scandal of one quarter of American preschoolers living in poverty in the Biden richest nation on earth? Today, nearly one in five American preschoolers are still living below the poverty line, even though we‘ve had 0 straight years of economic growth. What does that say to you about where America is today and what we need to do about it? NBC
(Warren) That's why I'm in this race, and that's how I'll beat Donald Trump. Warren (Buttigieg) That's just not true. Look, people know the way your supporters treat them. Buttigieg
Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 68
OK. So my plan is a public option. And according to all the studies out there, it would reduce Klobuchar premiums for 12 million people immediately. It would expand coverage for about that same number. It is a significant thing. It is what Barack Obama wanted to do from the very beginning. And the way I look at it, since we're in Vegas, when it comes to your plan, Elizabeth and Bernie's, on Medicare for all, you don't put your money on a number that's not even on the wheel. And why is Medicare for all not on the wheel? Why is it not on the wheel? Because two-thirds of the Democratic senators are not even on that bill, because a bunch of the new House members that got elected see the problems with blowing up the Affordable Care Act. They see it right in front of them. And the truth is that when you see some troubled waters, you don't blow up a bridge, you build one. And so we need to improve the Affordable Care Act, not blow it up.
(Buttigieg) As a matter of fact, if you add up all his policies altogether, they come to $50 trillion. Buttigieg He's only explained $25 trillion worth of revenue, which means that the hole in there is bigger than the size of the entire economy of the United States. The time has come to level with the American people on matters personal and on matters of policy. (Biden) If they want to release it, they should be able to release themselves. Say yes. Biden
I've been well on the record against red-lining since I worked on Wall Street. I was against during the Bloomberg financial crisis. I've been against it since. The financial crisis came about because the people that took the mortgages, packaged them, and other people bought them, those were -- that's where all the disaster was. Red-lining is still a practice some places, and we've got to cut it out. But it's just not true. What I was going to say, maybe we want to talk about businesses. I'm the only one here that I think that's ever started a business. Is that fair? OK. What we need is -- I can tell you in New York City, we had programs, they're mentoring programs for young businesspeople so they can learn how to start a business. We had programs that could get them seed capital. We had programs to get branch banking in their neighborhoods, because if you don't have a branch bank there, you can't get a checking account. You can't get a checking account, you can't get a loan. You can't get a loan, you can't get a mortgage. Then you don't have any wealth. There's ways to fix this. And it doesn't take trillions of dollars. It takes us to focus on the problems of small businesses.
(Buttigieg)It's why I am building a politics designed around inclusion, designed around belonging, Buttigieg because the one thing that will definitely perpetuate the income inequality we're living with right now is for Donald Trump to be re-elected, because we polarized this country with the wrong nominee.
CBS I -- I think that Donald Trump thinks it would be better if he's president. I do not think so. Vladimir Bloomberg Putin thinks that Donald Trump should be president of the United States. And that's why Russia is Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 69
helping you get elected, so you will lose to him. No, let me finish. 2010-2015 Josh A waiting period of 12 hours. I'm not saying he's responsible for Biden, Buttigieg the nine deaths, but that man would not have been able to get that weapon with the waiting period had been what I suggest until you are cleared. In addition to that, being progressive, he thought Barack Obama -- he wanted a primary-- he said we should primary Barack Obama, someone should, and, in fact, the president was weak and our administration was in fact not up to it. Look, folks, this is -- let's talk about progressive. Progressive is getting things done, and that's what we got done. We got a lot done.
Too much crosstalk to pinpoint exactly one person he responds to Let's just go on the record. They talk about 40 Democrats; 21 of those were people that I spent $100 Bloomberg million to help elect. All of the new Democrats that came in and put Nancy Pelosi in charge and gave the Congress the ability to control this president...... I -- I got them. Number two, when you talk about money, let's put this in perspective. The federal budget is $4.5 trillion a year. We get $3.5 trillion in revenue. We lose $1 trillion a year. That's why the federal budget -- deficit is -- right now, the debt is $20 trillion, going up to 21. We just cannot afford some of this stuff people talk about. But if you... Let me finish. If you keep on going, we will elect Bernie. Bernie will lose to Donald Trump. And Donald Trump and the House and the Senate and some of the statehouses will all go red. And then, between gerrymandering and appointing judges, for the next 20 or 30 years, we're going to live with this catastrophe.
I'm definitely on board with the part about sending up somebody from the middle of the country. But Buttigieg I want to come back to this question about the filibuster because this is not some long-ago bad vote that Bernie Sanders took, this is a current bad position that Bernie Sanders holds. And we're in South Carolina. How are we going to deliver a revolution if you won't even support a rule change? We are in this state... We are in the state where Strom Thurmond used the filibuster to block civil rights legislation repeatedly. No less a Senate traditional figure than Harry Reid has called for it to go. It has got to go, because otherwise Washington will not deliver. I was in high school when the Columbine shooting happened. And I remember everybody in Washington saying, never again, we'll never let this happen again. And then a second school shooting generation has now been produced. Shame on us if we allow there to be a third. And also...... in terms of making the case, I think it wouldn't be a bad idea for somebody to illustrate, from the perspective of the a veteran, why the kinds of weaponry, anything remotely like what I trained on in order to go serve in a war zone has no business being sold anywhere near an American school or church or neighbor. So this is one thing where a president can make a big difference all by herself. And I'm going to start Warren with my secretary of education. My secretary of education will be someone who has taught in public school. My secretary of education will be someone who believes in public education. And my secretary of education will believe that public dollars should stay in public school. One more thing. My secretary of education will believe that it is time to get rid of high-stakes testing. We need to Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 70
support our children. But, look, we want to build a future in this country? We build a future by investing in our children. I've got a plan to put $800 billion new federal dollars into our public schools. (Interrupt) Education is not free. We must invest in the future of our children. Yes, so, when I was born, there was no difference in your life expectancy, if you were born in a rural Buttigieg area or a city. Now the gap is the biggest it has been in a generation, and that is particularly affecting black rural families in places like South Carolina. We're seeing hospital closures right and left. And we're seeing them, in particular, in states where Medicaid was not expanded, something that is hurting black and poor white families and is largely the result of racial voters suppression. See, all of these things are connected, housing, wages, the ability to get anything meaningful done on criminal justice reform. All of these things are going to be harder to deal with as long as black voices are systematically excluded from political participation, which is happening on everything from the purging of voter rolls to the closing of voting locations. And that harms everyone. (Interrupt) It's why in my Frederick Douglass plan for comprehensively dealing with these issues, part of the core of it is a 21st Century Voting Rights Act. Look, the first thing you do is we should not make this a criminal thing if you have a small amount. Bloomberg, Klobuchar For dealers, yes, but for the average person, no, and you should expunge the records of those that got caught up in this before. Number two, we're not going to take it away from states that have already done it. But, number three, you should listen to the scientists and the doctors. They say go very slowly. They haven't done enough research. And the evidence so far is worrisome, before we get all our kids, particularly kids in their late teens, boys even more than girls, where this may be damaging their brains. Until we know the science, it's just nonsensical to push ahead. But the cat's out of the bag. So some states have it, you're not going to take it away. Get rid of the -- decriminalize the possession. What we did with Ebola -- I was part of making sure that pandemic did not get to the United States, Biden saved millions of lives. And what we did, we set up, I helped set up that office in the presidency, in the president's office, on -- on diseases that are pandemic diseases. We increased the budget of the CDC. We increased the NIH budget. We should -- and our president today -- and he's wiped all that out. We did it. We stopped it. And the second thing I'd point out to you is that what I would do immediately is restore the funding. He cut the funding for CDC. He tried to cut the funding for NIH. He cut the funding for the entire effort. And here's the deal. I would be on the phone with China and making it clear, we are going to need to be in your country; you have to be open; you have to be clear; we have to know what's going on; we have to be there with you, and insist on it and insist, insist, insist. (Interrupt) I could get that done. No one up here has ever dealt internationally with any of these world leaders. I'm the only one that has.
Barack Obama was abroad, he was in a town meeting, he did not in any way suggest that there was Biden anything positive about the Cuban government. He acknowledged that they did increase life expectancy. But he went on and condemned the dictatorship. He went on and condemned the people who, in fact, had run that committee. He also made sure to make it clear -- and by the way, I called to make sure that I was prepared to -- I never say (INAUDIBLE) my private conversations with him, Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 71
but the fact of the matter is he, in fact, does not, did not, has never embraced an authoritarian regime and does not now. (Interrupt) This man said that, in fact, he thought it was -- he did not condemn what they did. This is not about what coups were happening in the 1970s or '80s, this is about the future. This is Buttigieg about 2020. We are not going to survive or succeed, and we're certainly not going to win by reliving the Cold War. And we're not going to win these critical, critical House and Senate races if people in those races have to explain why the nominee of the Democratic Party is telling people to look at the bright side of the Castro regime. We've got to be a lot smarter about this and look to the future. I don't think we do. I think that we can get all those bold progressive things done without having Klobuchar someone that is so alienating that we're going to turn off the voters that we need to bring with us.
Appendix B: Warren Database
Debate Date Question Asked Answer Type Type 2 26-Jun-19 You have many plans -- free college, So I think of it this way. Who is this economy really working for? It's doing great for P D free child care, government health a thinner and thinner slice at the top. It's doing great for giant drug companies. It's care, cancellation of student debt, just not doing great for people who are trying to get a prescription filled. It's doing new taxes, new regulations, the great for people who want to invest in private prisons, just not for the African- breakup of major corporations. But Americans and Latinx whose families are torn apart, whose lives are destroyed, and Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 72
this comes at a time when 71 percent whose communities are ruined. It's doing great for giant oil companies that want to of Americans say the economy is drill everywhere, just not for the rest of us who are watching climate change bear doing well, including 60 percent of down upon us. When you've got a government, when you've got an economy that Democrats. What do you say to those does great for those with money and isn't doing great for everyone else, that is who worry this kind of significant corruption, pure and simple. We need to call it out. We need to attack it head on. change could be risky to the And we need to make structural change in our government, in our economy, and in economy? our country. Thank you, Senator. Senator Warren, So the way I understand this, it's there is way too much consolidation now in giant P D I mentioned you… Are you picking industries in this country. That hurts workers. It hurts small businesses. It hurts winners and losers? independent farmers. It hurts our economy overall. And it helps constrict real innovation and growth in this economy. Now, look, we've had the laws out there for a long time to be able to fight back. What's been missing is courage, courage in Washington to take on the giants. That's part of the corruption in this system. It has been far too long that the monopolies have been making the campaign contributions, have been funding the super PACs, have been out there making sure that their influence is heard and felt in every single decision that gets made in Washington. Where I want to start this is I want to return government to the people, and that means calling out the names of the monopolists and saying I have the courage to go after them. Senator Warren, are they coming So we've had an industrial policy in the United States for decades now, and it's P D back? Are these jobs coming back? basically been let giant corporations do whatever they want to do. Giant corporations have exactly one loyalty, and that is to profits. And if they can save a nickel by moving a job to Mexico or to Asia or to Canada, they're going to do it. So here's what I propose for an industrial policy. Start with a place where there's a real need. There's going to be a worldwide need for green technology, ways to clean up the air, ways to clean up the water. And we can be the ones to provide that. We need to go tenfold in our research and development on green energy going forward. And then we need to say any corporation can come and use that research. They can make all kinds of products from it, but they have to be manufactured right here in the United States of America. And then we have to double down and sell it around the world. There's a $23 trillion market coming for green products. We should be the leaders and the owners, and we should have that 1.2 million manufacturing jobs here in America. Your time is up. Thank you. Senator So, yes. I'm with Bernie on Medicare for all. And let me tell you why. I spent a big F D Warren, you signed on to Bernie chunk of my life studying why families go broke. And one of the number-one Sanders' Medicare for all plan. It reasons is the cost of health care, medical bills. And that's not just for people who would put essentially everybody on don't have insurance. It's for people who have insurance. Look at the business model Medicare and then eliminate private of an insurance company. It's to bring in as many dollars as they can in premiums plans that offer similar coverage. Is and to pay out as few dollars as possible for your health care. That leaves families that the plan or path that you would with rising premiums, rising copays, and fighting with insurance companies to try to Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 73
pursue as president? get the health care that their doctors say that they and their children need. Medicare for all solves that problem. And I understand. There are a lot of politicians who say, oh, it's just not possible, we just can't do it, have a lot of political reasons for this. What they're really telling you is they just won't fight for it. Well, health care is a basic human right, and I will fight for basic human rights...... point, though, and that is that the insurance companies last year alone sucked $23 N R billion in profits out of the health care system, $23 billion. And that doesn't count the money that was paid to executives, the money that was spent lobbying Washington. We have a giant industry that wants our health care system to stay the way it is, because it's not working for families, but it's sure as heck working for them. It's time for us to make families come first. Senator Warren, would you put limits I would make certain that every woman has access to the full range of reproductive F D,I on -- any limits on abortion? health care services, and that includes birth control, it includes abortion, it includes everything for a woman. And I want to add on that. It's not enough for us to expect the courts to protect us. Forty-seven years ago, Roe v. Wade was decided, and we've all looked to the courts all that time, as state after state has undermined Roe, has put in exceptions, has come right up to the edge of taking away protections... We now have an America where most people support Roe v. Wade. We need to make that a federal law. Never say never. But we will march So, in this period of time that I have been running for president, I've had more than P D forward here and I will lean forward 100 town halls. I've taken more than 2,000 unfiltered questions. And the single here a little bit. Senator Warren, hardest questions I've gotten, I got one from a little boy and I got one from a little we're going to get to the gun question girl, and that is to say, when you're president, how are you going to keep us safe? here. In Parkland, Florida, it's just That's our responsibility as adults. Seven children will die today from gun violence, north of here in Broward County. As children and teenagers. And they won't just die in mass shootings. They'll die on you know, it has created a lot of sidewalks, they'll die in playgrounds, they'll die in people's backyards. Gun violence teenage activism on the gun issue. It is a national health emergency in this country. And we need to treat it like that. So has inspired a lot of you to come out what can we do? We can do the things that are sensible. We can do the universal with more robust plans to deal with background checks. We can ban the weapons of war. But we can also double down guns, including assault weapons ban, on the research and find out what really works, where it is that we can make the but even if you're able to implement differences at the margins that will keep our children safe. We need to treat this like that, what do you do about the the virus that's killing our children. hundreds of millions of guns already out there? And does the federal government have to play a role in dealing with it? OK, thank you, Senator Warren. You What I think we need to do is we need to treat it like a serious research problem, P I didn't address -- do you think the which we have not done. You know, guns in the hands of a collector who's had them federal government needs to go and for decades, who's never fired them, who takes safety seriously, that's very different figure out a way to get the guns that from guns that are sold and turned over quickly. Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 74
are already out there? We can't treat this as an across-the-board problem. We have to treat it like a public health emergency. That means bring data to bear and it means make real change in this country, whether it's politically popular or not. We need to fight for our children. Senator Warren -- I'm going to get I do. (Interrupt) I do. We are democracy. And the way a democracy is supposed to P D,I you -- I will get you 30 seconds, I work is the will of the people matters. Now, we have for far too long have had a promise. Let me get -- let me get this Congress in Washington that has just completely dismissed what people care about question. We're trying. I know you across this country. They have made this country work much better than for those guys -- we've got other issues we're who can make giant contributions, made it work better for those who hire armies of trying to get to, including a big one lobbyists and lawyers, and not made it work for the people. Well, here's how I see coming up in a minute. But, Senator this happening. Number one, sure, I want to see us get a Democratic majority in the Warren, I want to continue on the Senate. But short of a Democratic majority in the Senate, you better understand the Mitch McConnell thing, because you fight still goes on. It starts in the White House, and it means that everybody we have a lot of ambitious plans. energize in 2020 stays on the frontlines come January 2021. We have to push from (Interrupt) You have a plan for that. the outside, have leadership from the inside, and make this Congress reflect the will OK. We talked about the Supreme of the people. Court. Do you have a plan to deal with Mitch McConnell if you don't beat him in the Senate, if he's still sitting there as the Senate majority leader? It's very plausible you be elected president with a Republican Senate. Do you have a plan to deal with Mitch McConnell? 30-Jul-19 So, look. Let's -- let's be clear about this. We are the Democrats. We are not about P R, I trying to take away health care from anyone. That's what the Republicans are trying to do. And we should stop using Republican talking points in order to talk with each other about how to best provide that health care. Now, I want to have a chance to tell the story about my friend Ady Barkan. Ady is 35 years old. He has a wife, Rachael, he has a cute little boy named Carl. He also has ALS and it's killing him. Ady has health insurance, good health insurance...(interrupt) ... and it's not nearly enough. Senator? I want to -- I'm coming No, this is important. (interrupt)All right. (Interrupt)So giant corporations and P R,I,D right…(Interrupt)... I'm staying with billionaires are going to pay more. Middle-class families are going to pay less out of you, I'm staying with you. But you pocket for their health care. And I'd like to finish talking about Ady, the guy who exceeded your time. So, let me just has ALS... (interrupt) This isn't funny. This is somebody who has health insurance stay with you on Medicare for all. and is dying. And every month, he has about $9,000 in medical bills that his (Interrupt)At the last debate, you said insurance company won't cover. His wife, Rachael, is on the phone for hours and you're, quote, "with Bernie on hours and hours, begging the insurance company, "Please cover what the doctors say Medicare for all." Now, Senator he needs." He talks about what it's like to go online with thousands of other people Sanders has said that people in the to beg friends, family, and strangers for money so he can cover his medical Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 75
middle class will pay more in taxes expenses. The basic profit model of an insurance company is taking as much money to help pay for Medicare for all, as you can in premiums and pay out as little as possible in health care coverage. That though that will be offset by the is not working for Americans...(interrupt)... across this country. (interrupt)Medicare elimination of insurance premiums for All will fix that, and that's why I'll fight for it. and other costs. Are you also, quote, "with Bernie" on Medicare for all when it comes to raising taxes on middle-class Americans to pay for it? Clarification: in 15 extra seconds, Costs will go up for billionaires and go up for corporations. For middle-class P D, A would you raise taxes on the middle families, costs -- total costs -- will go down. class to pay for Medicare for All, offset, obviously, by the elimination of insurance premiums, yes or no? So we have to think of this in terms of the big frame. What's the problem in P R, I Washington? It works great for the wealthy. It works great for those who can hire armies of lobbyists and lawyers. And it keeps working great for the insurance companies and the drug companies. What it's going to take is real courage to fight back against them. These insurance companies do not have a God-given right to make $23 billion in profits and suck it out of our health care system. (Interrupt) They do not have a God-given right... (Interrupt) ... to put... (end) You know... (interrupt) we have tried this experiment with the insurance companies. P R,I And what they've done is they've sucked billions of dollars out of our health care system. And they force people to have to fight to try to get the health care coverage that their doctors and nurses say that they need. Why does everybody -- why does every doctor, why does every hospital have to fill out so many complicated forms? It's because it gives insurance companies a chance to say no and to push that cost back on the patients. (interrupt) That's what we have to fight. Senator Warren, you say the So the problem is that, right now, the criminalization statute is what gives Donald N D,R, I provision making illegal border Trump the ability to take children away from their parents. It's what gives him the crossings a crime is totally ability to lock up people at our borders. We need to continue to have border security, unnecessary. Please respond. and we can do that, but what we can't do is not live our values. I've been down to the border. I have seen the mothers. I have seen the cages of babies. We must be a country that everyday lives our values. And that means we cannot...(interrupt)... make it a crime...(interrupt)... when someone... Thank you, Senator. Just to clarify, Yes. The point is not about criminalization. That has given Donald Trump the tool to N R,I,D would you break families apart. (interrupt) We need…(interrupt)Well, and one way to fix it is decriminalize…(Interrupt)... illegal to decriminalize. That's the whole point. What we're... looking for here is a way to border crossings? take away the tool that Donald Trump has used... (Interrupt)... to break up families. Senator…(Interrupt)... he just said You know, I just wanted (ph) to…(interrupt)... add on this…(interrupt)You know, I N R, D, I your plan in unrealistic. How do you think that what we have to do, is we have to be an America that is clear about what Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 76
respond? we want to do with immigration. We need to expand legal immigration. We need to create a path for citizenship, not just for Dreamers but for grandmas and for people who have been working here in the farms and for students who have overstayed their visas...... we need to fix the crisis at the border. And a big part of how we do that, is we do not play into Donald Trump's hands. (interrupt) He wants to stir up the crisis at the border because that's his overall message. It's -- if there's anything wrong in your life, blame them. No. (Interrupt)What -- what you're saying is ignore the law. Laws matter. And it P R, I matters if we say our law is that we will lock people up who come here, seeking refuge, who come here, seeking asylum, that is not a crime. And as Americans, what we need to do is have a sane system that keeps us safe at the border but does not criminalize the activity...(interrupt)... of a mother fleeing here for safety. 12-Sep-19 Senator Warren, let me take that to So, let's be clear about health care. And let's actually start where vice president did. N D you, particularly on what Senator We all owe a huge debt to President Obama, who fundamentally transformed health Biden was saying there about health care in America and committed this country to health care for every human being. care. He has actually praised Bernie And now the question is, how best can we improve on it? And I believe the best way Sanders for being candid about his we can do that is we make sure that everybody gets covered by health care at the health care plan, that Senator -- says lowest possible cost. How do we pay for it? We pay for it, those at the very top, the that Sanders has been candid about richest individuals and the biggest corporations, are going to pay more. And middle the fact that middle class taxes are class families are going to pay less. That's how this is going to work. going to go up and most of private insurance is going to be eliminated. Will you make that same admission? Direct question. You said middle Look, what families have to deal with is cost, total cost. That's what they have to N D class families are going to pay less. deal with. And understand, families are paying for their health care today. Families But will middle class taxes go up to pay every time an insurance company says, sorry, you can't see that specialist. Every pail for pay for the program? I know time an insurance company says, sorry, that doctor is out of network, sorry, we are you believe that the deductibles and not covering that prescription. Families are paying every time they don't get a the premiums will go down. Will prescription filled because they can't pay for it. They don't have a lump checked out middle class taxes go up? Will because they can't afford the co-pay. What we're talking about here is what's going private insurance be eliminated? to happen in families' pockets, what's going to happen in their budgets. And the answer is on Medicare for All, costs are going to go up for wealthier individuals and costs are going to go up for giant corporations. But for hard-working families across this country, costs are going to go down and that's how it should work under Medicare for All in our health care system. So, let's be clear, I've actually never met anybody who likes their health insurance P R company. I've met people who like their doctors. I've met people who like their nurses. I've met people who like their pharmacists. I've met people who like their physical therapists. What they want is access to health care. And we just need to be clear about what Medicare for All is all about. Instead of paying premiums into Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 77
insurance companies and then having insurance companies build their profits by saying no to coverage, we're going to do this by saying, everyone is covered by Medicare for All, every health care provider is covered. And the only question here in terms of difference is where to send the bill? I'm sorry. (Interrupt)So let's be clear about this. People will have access to all of P R, I their doctors, all of their nurses, their community hospitals, their rural hospitals. Doctors won't have to hire people to fill out crazy forms. They won't have to spend time on the phone arguing with insurance companies. People who have sick family members won't have to get into these battles. What this is about is making sure that we have the most efficient way possible to pay for health care for everyone in this country. Insurance companies last year sucked $23 billion in profits out of the system. How did they make that money? Every one of those $23 billion was made by an insurance company saying no to your health care coverage. Senator Warren, I want to come to So let's start by framing the problem the right way. We have a gun violence problem P D you next, because you have actually in this country. The mass shootings are terrible, but they get all the headlines. said in recent days that there are Children die every day on streets, in neighborhoods, on playgrounds. People die things you can get done with from violence, from suicide and domestic abuse. We have a gun violence problem in Republicans in the Senate. What can this country. And we agree on many steps we could take to fix it. My view on this is, you get done on gun control? we're going to -- it's not going to be one and done on this. We're going to do it, and we're going to have to do it again, and we're going to have to come back some more until we cut the number of gun deaths in this country significantly. But here's the deal. The question we need to ask is, when we've got this much support across the country, 90 percent of Americans want to see us do -- I like registration -- want to see us do background checks, want to get assault weapons off the streets, why doesn't it happen? And the answer is corruption, pure and simple. We have a Congress that is beholden to the gun industry. And unless we're willing to address that head-on and roll back the filibuster, we're not going to get anything done on guns. I was in the United States Senate when 54 senators said let's do background checks, let's get rid of assault weapons, and with 54 senators, it failed because of the filibuster. Until we attack the systemic problems, we can't get gun reform in this country. We've got to go straight against the industry and we've got to change Congress, so it doesn't just work for the wealthy and well-connected, so it works for the people. OK, Senator Warren, hundreds of Well, I start with a statement of principles, and that is, in this country, immigration P D, I children have been separated from does not make us weaker, immigration makes us stronger. I want to see us expand their parents at the border. And legal immigration and create a pathway to citizenship for our DREAMers, but also recently, in Mississippi, we saw the for their grandparents, and for their cousins, for people who have overstayed student largest immigration raid in a decade. visas, and for people who came here to work in the fields. I want to have a system You want ICE, the agency in charge that is a path to citizenship that is fair and achievable. Down at the border, we've got of rounding up undocumented to rework this entirely. A system right now that cannot tell the difference in the Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 78
immigrants. So how would you deal threat posed by a terrorist, a criminal, and a 12-year-old girl is not a system that is with the millions of immigrants who keeping us safer, and it is not serving our values. (interrupt)We need -- I want to add arrive legally but overstay their one more part on this, because I think we have to look at all the pieces. Why do we visas? And how would you stop have a crisis at the border? In no small part because we have withdrawn help from hundreds of thousands of Central people in Central America who are suffering. We need to restore that help. We need Americans who want to migrate to to help establish and re-establish the rule of law so that people don't feel like they the U.S.? have to flee for their lives. We have a crisis that Donald Trump has created and hopes to profit from politically. We have to have the courage to stand up and fight back. Senator Warren, let me bring you in So our trade policy in America has been broken for decades, and it has been broken P D on this conversation. President because it works for giant multinational corporations and not for much of anyone Obama signed the Trans-Pacific else. These are giant corporations that, shoot, if they can save a nickel by moving a Partnership. In part, it was designed job to a foreign country, they'll do it in a heartbeat. And yet for decades now, who's to rein in China, to bring China into been whispering in the ears of our trade negotiators? Who has shaped our trade some kind of regulation. What do policy? It's been the giant corporations. It's been their lobbyists and their executives. you think he got wrong? The way we change our trade policy in America is, first, the procedures. Who sits at the table? I want to negotiate trade with unions at the table. I want to negotiate it with small farmers at the table. I want to negotiate it with environmentalists at the table. I want to negotiate with human rights activists at the table. And you asked the question about leverage. If I can just respond to that one, the leverage, are you kidding? Everybody wants access to the American market. That means that we have the capacity to say right here in America, you want to come sell goods to American consumers? Then you got to raise your standards. You've got to raise your labor standards. You've got to raise your environmental standards...... so our companies can compete on a level playing field. We can use trade not to undermine American workers and not to undermine American farms and not to undermine small businesses in this country. We can use trade to help build a stronger economy. Many of you on this stage have said Yes. And I'll tell you why. What we're doing right now in Afghanistan is not helping F R you'd bring the troops home in your the safety and security of the United States. It is not helping the safety and security first term. Others have said in your of the world. It is not helping the safety and security of Afghanistan. We need to first year. Senator Warren, we all bring our troops home. And then we need to make a big shift. We cannot ask our know the presidency is much military to keep solving problems that cannot be solved militarily. We're not going different from the campaign trail. to bomb our way to a solution in Afghanistan. We need to treat the problem of President Obama wanted to bring the terrorism as a worldwide problem, and that means we need to be working with all of troops home. President Trump our allies, our European allies, our Canadian allies, our Asian allies, our allies in promised to bring the troops home. Africa and in South America. We need to work together to root out terrorism. It And you have said of Afghanistan, means using all of our tools. It means economic investment. It means expanding our let's help them reach a peace diplomatic efforts instead of hollowing out the State Department and deliberately settlement. It is time to bring our making it so we have no eyes and ears in many of these countries. We need a foreign troops home, in your words, starting policy that is about our security and about leading on our values. Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 79
right now. Would you keep that promise to bring the troops home starting right now with no deal with the Taliban? Senator Warren, a quick follow on I was in Afghanistan with John McCain two years ago this past summer. I think it N D that, because top U.S. leaders, may have been Senator McCain's last trip before he was sick. And I talked to people military leaders on the ground in -- we did -- we talked to military leaders, American and local leaders, we talked to Afghanistan told me you can't do it people on the ground and asked the question, the same one I ask on the Senate without a deal with the Taliban. You Armed Services Committee every time one of the generals comes through: Show me just said you would, you would bring what winning looks like. Tell me what it looks like. And what you hear is a lot of, them home. What if they told you "Uh," because no one can describe it. And the reason no one can describe it is that? Would you listen to their because the problems in Afghanistan are not problems that can be solved by a advice? military. I have three older brothers who all served in the military. I understand firsthand the kind of commitment they have made. They will do anything we ask them to do. But we cannot ask them to solve problems that they alone cannot solve. We need to work with the rest of the world. We need to use our economic tools. We need to use our diplomatic tools. We need to build with our allies. And we need to make the whole world safer, not keep troops bombing in Afghanistan. Senator Warren, should American Yes. We need to work on every front on climate change. It is the threat to every F D foreign policy be based around the living thing on this planet and we are running out of time. Every time the scientists principle of climate change? go back, they say, we have less and less time than we thought we had. But that means we've got to use all the tools. One of the tools we need to use are our regulatory tools. I have proposed following Governor Inslee, that we, by 2028, cut all carbon emissions from new buildings. By 2030, carbon emissions from cars. And by 2035, all carbon emissions from the manufacture of electricity. That alone, those three, will cut our emissions here in the United States by 70 percent. We can do this. We also need to help around the world to clean, but understand this one more time. Why doesn't it happen? As long as Washington is paying more attention to money than it is to our future, we can't make the changes we need to make. We have to attack the corruption head-on so that we can save our planet. Senator Warren, to use Mr. Yang's You know, I think I'm the only person on this stage who has been a public school P D, R, I term, are you just jumping into bed teacher. I had wanted to be a public school teacher since I was in second grade. And with teachers unions? let's be clear in all the ways we talk about this, money for public schools should stay in public schools, not go anywhere else. I've already made my commitment. I will -- we will have a secretary of education who has been a public school teacher. I think this is ultimately about our values. I have proposed a two-cent wealth tax on the top one-tenth of one percent in this country. That would give us enough money to start with our babies by providing universal child care for every baby age zero to five, universal pre-K for every three-year-old and four-year-old in this country...(Interrupt)... raise the wages of every childcare worker and preschool Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 80
teacher in this country, cancel student loan debt for 95 percent of the folks who've got it...(Interrupt)... and strengthen our unions. This is how we build an America that reflects our values, not just where the money comes from with the billionaires and corporate executives. And, candidates, the question is on I mentioned earlier, I've known what I wanted to be since second grade. I wanted to P D,R the quality of resilience. No president be a public school teacher. And I invested early. I used to line my dollies up and can succeed without resilience. Every teach school. I had a reputation for being tough but fair. By the time I graduated president confronts crises, defeats, from high school, my family didn't have money for a college application, much less and mistakes. So I want to ask each to send me off to four years at a university. And my story, like a lot of stories, has a of you, what's the most significant lot of twists and turns. Got a scholarship, and then at 19, I got married, dropped out professional setback you've had to of school, took a minimum wage job, thought my dream was over. I got a chance face? How did you recover from it? down the road at the University of Houston. And I made it as a special needs And what did you learn from it? teacher. I still remember that first year as a special needs teacher. I could tell you what those babies looked like. I had 4- to 6-year-olds. But at the end of that first year, I was visibly pregnant. And back in the day, that meant that the principal said to me -- wished me luck and hired someone else for the job. So, there I am, I'm at home, I got a baby, I can't have a job. What am I going to do? Here's resilience. I said, I'll go to law school. And the consequence was -- I practiced law for about 45 minutes and then went back to my first love, which was teaching. But it let me get into fights. It gave me new tools. And the reason I'm standing here today is because I got back up, I fought back. I know what's broken. I want to be in the fight to fix it in America. That's why I'm here. 15-Oct-19 Senator Warren, I want to start with Because sometimes there are issues that are bigger than politics. And I think that's P D you. You have said that there's the case with this impeachment inquiry. When I made the decision to run for already enough evidence for president, I certainly didn't think it was going to be about impeachment. But when President Trump to be impeached the Mueller report came out, I read it, all 442 pages. And when I got to the end, I and removed from office. But the realized that Mueller had shown, too, a fare-thee-well, that this president had question is, with the election only obstructed justice and done it repeatedly. And so at that moment, I called for one year away, why shouldn't it be opening an impeachment inquiry. Now, that didn't happen. And look what happened the voters who determine the as a result. Donald Trump broke the law again in the summer, broke it again this fall. president's fate? You know, we took a constitutional oath, and that is that no one is above the law, and that includes the president of the United States. Impeachment is the way that we establish that this man will not be permitted to break the law over and over without consequences. This is about Donald Trump, but, understand, it's about the next president and the next president and the next president and the future of this country. The impeachment must go forward. Senator Warren, we've proposed -- So I have made clear what my principles are here, and that is costs will go up for the N D you've proposed some sweeping wealthy and for big corporations, and for hard-working middle-class families, costs plans, free public college, free will go down. You know, the way I see this is, I have been out all around this universal childcare, eliminating most country. I've done 140 town halls now, been to 27 states and Puerto Rico. Shoot, I've Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 81
Americans' college debt. And you've done 70,000 selfies, which must be the new measure of democracy. And this gives said how you're going to pay for people a chance to come up and talk to me directly. So I have talked with the family, those plans. But you have not the mom and dad whose daughter's been diagnosed with cancer. I have talked to the specified how you're going to pay for young woman whose mother has just been diagnosed with diabetes. I've talked to the the most expensive plan, Medicare young man who has MS. And here's the thing about all of them. They all had great for all. Will you raise taxes on the health insurance right at the beginning. But then they found out when they really middle class to pay for it, yes or no? needed it, when the costs went up, that the insurance company pulled the rug out from underneath them and they were left with nothing. Look, the way I see this, it is hard enough to get a diagnosis that your child has cancer, to think about the changes in your family if your mom has diabetes, or what it means for your life going forward if you've been diagnosed with MS. But what you shouldn't have to worry about is how you're going to pay for your health care after that. Senator Warren, to be clear, Senator So the way I see this, it is about what kinds of costs middle-class families are going N D Sanders acknowledges he's going to to face. So let me be clear on this. Costs will go up for the wealthy. They will go up raise taxes on the middle class to pay for big corporations. And for middle-class families, they will go down. I will not for Medicare for all. You've endorsed sign a bill into law that does not lower costs for middle-class families. his plan. Should you acknowledge it, too? So, let's be clear. Whenever someone hears the term Medicare for all who want it, P R, I understand what that really means. It's Medicare for all who can afford it. And that's the problem we've got. Medicare for all is the gold standard. It is the way we get health care coverage for every single American, including the family whose child has been diagnosed with cancer, including the person who's just gotten an MS diagnosis. That's how we make sure that everyone gets health care. We can pay for this. I've laid out the basic principles. Costs are going to go up for the wealthy. They're going to go up for big corporations. They will not go up for middle-class families. And I will not sign a bill into law that raises their costs, because costs are what people care about. I've been studying this, you know, for the biggest part of my life... (Interrupt)... why people go bankrupt. Senator Warren, will you So my view on this, and what I have committed to, is costs will go down for N D,R, I acknowledge what the senator just hardworking, middle-class families. I will not embrace a plan like Medicare for all said about taxes going up? who can afford it that will leave behind millions of people who cannot. And I will not embrace a plan that says people have great insurance right up until you get the diagnosis and the insurance company says, "Sorry, we're not covering your expensive cancer treatments, we're not covering your expensive treatments for MS."(Interrupt)"We're not covering what you need." You know, I didn‘t spend most of my time in Washington. I spent most of my time N R, I studying one basic question, and that is why hardworking people go broke. And one of the principal reasons for that is the cost of health care. And back when I was studying it, two out of every three families that ended up in bankruptcy after a Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 82
serious medical problem had health insurance. The problem we've got right now is the overall cost of health care. And, look, you can try to spin this any way you want. I've spent my entire life on working on how America's middle class has been hollowed out and how we fight back. I've put out nearly 50 plans on how we can fight back and how we can rebuild an America that works. And a part is that is we have got to stop... (Interrupt)... Americans from going bankrupt over health care costs. I get a little bit tired -- I must say -- of people defending a system which is P R dysfunctional, which is cruel, 87 million uninsured, 30,000 people dying every single year, 500,000 people going bankrupt for one reason, they came down with cancer. I will tell you what the issue is here. The issue is whether the Democratic Party has the guts to stand up to the health care industry, which made $100 billion in profit, whether we have the guts to stand up to the corrupt, price-fixing pharmaceutical industry, which is charging us the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs. And if we don't have the guts to do that, if all we can do is take their money, we should be ashamed of ourselves. Senator Warren, you wrote that So the data show that we have had a lot of problems with losing jobs, but the P D blaming job loss on automation is, principal reason has been bad trade policy. The principal reason has been a bunch of quote, "a good story, except it's not corporations, giant multinational corporations who've been calling the shots on really true." So should workers here trade, giant multinational corporations that have no loyalty to America. They have in Ohio not be worried about losing no loyalty to American workers. They have no loyalty to American consumers. They their jobs to automation? have no loyalty to American communities. They are loyal only to their own bottom line. I have a plan to fix that, and it's accountable capitalism. It says, you want to have one of the giant corporations in America? Then, by golly, 40 percent of your board of directors should be elected by your employees. That will make a difference when a corporation decides, gee, we could save a nickel by moving a job to Mexico, when there are people on the board in the boardroom saying, no, do you know what that does to our company, do you know what that does to our community, to what it does to our workers? We also need to make it easier to join a union and give unions more power when they negotiate. We need to restructure strength in this economy, and that‘s where it starts. So I understand that what we're all looking for is how we strengthen America's N R, I middle class. And actually, I think the thing closest to the universal basic income is Social Security. It's one of the reasons that I've put forward a plan to extend the solvency of Social Security by decades and add $200 to the payment of every person who receives Social Security right now and every person who receives disability insurance right now. That $200 a month will lift nearly 5 million families out of poverty. And it will sure loosen up the budget for a whole lot more. It also has a provision for your wife, for those who stay home to do caregiving for children or for seniors, and creates an opportunity for them to get credit on their Social Security. So Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 83
after a lifetime of hard work, people are entitled to retire with dignity. (interrupt) I see this as an important question about just -- I want to understand the data on this. (interrupt) And I want to make sure we're responding to make this work. Income inequality is growing in the When you have a half-a-million Americans sleeping out on the street today, when P R United States at an alarming rate. you have 87 people -- 87 million people uninsured or underinsured, when you've got The top 1 percent now own more of hundreds of thousands of kids who cannot afford to go to college, and millions this nation's wealth than the bottom struggling with the oppressive burden of student debt, and then you also have three 90 percent combined. Senator people owning more wealth than the bottom half of American society, that is a moral Sanders, when you introduced your and economic outrage. And the truth is, we cannot afford to continue this level of wealth tax, which would tax the income and wealth inequality. And we cannot afford a billionaire class, whose greed assets of the wealthiest Americans, and corruption has been at war with the working families of this country for 45 you said, quoting you, Senator, years. So if you're asking me do I think we should demand that the wealthy start "Billionaires should not exist." Is the paying -- the wealthiest, top 0.1 percent, start paying their fair share of taxes so we goal of your plan to tax billionaires can create a nation and a government that works for all of us? Yes, that's exactly out of existence? what I believe. So I think this is about our values as a country. Show me your budget, show me your P R, D, I tax plans, and we'll know what your values are. And right now in America, the top 0.1 percent have so much wealth -- understand this -- that if we put a 2 cent tax on their 50 millionth and first dollar, and on every dollar after that, we would have enough money to provide universal childcare for every baby in this country, age zero to five, universal pre-K for every child, raise the wages of every childcare worker and preschool teacher in America, provide for universal tuition-free college, put $50 billion into historically black colleges and universities...(interrupt)... and cancel -- no, let me finish, please, and cancel student loan debt for 95 percent of the people who have it. My question is not why do Bernie and I support a wealth tax. It's why is it does everyone else on this stage think it is more important to protect billionaires than it is to invest in an entire generation of Americans? So understand, taxing income is not going to get you where you need to be the way P R taxing wealth does, that the rich are not like you and me. The really, really billionaires are making their money off their accumulated wealth, and it just keeps growing. We need a wealth tax in order to make investments in the next generation. Look, I understand that this is hard, but I think as Democrats we are going to succeed when we dream big and fight hard, not when we dream small and quit before we get started. So I'm really shocked at the notion that anyone thinks I'm punitive. Look, I don't P R, I have a beef with billionaires. My problem is you made a fortune in America, you had a great idea, you got out there and worked for it, good for you. But you built that fortune in America. I guarantee you built it in part using workers all of us helped pay to educate. You built it in part getting your goods to markets on roads and bridges all of us helped pay for. You built it at least in part protected by police and Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 84
firefighters all of us help pay the salaries for. And all I'm saying is, you make it to the top, the top 0.1 percent, then pitch in two cents so every other kid in America has a chance to make it. (Interrupt) That's what this is about. (Interrupt) But that is... (Interrupt) That is the point. This is universal childcare for every baby in this country, early educational opportunities for every child, universal pre-K no matter where you live for every 3-year-old and 4-year-old. (Interrupt) Raising the wages -- no, raising the wages of every childcare worker and preschool teacher in this country. This is about universal college, about investment in our HBCUs, about making sure that we get rid of the student loan debt burden that is crushing...(end) So, look, I think that we ought to get out of the Middle East. I don't think we should P R, I have troops in the Middle East. But we have to do it the right way, the smart way. What this president has done is that he has sucked up to dictators, he has made impulsive decisions that often his own team doesn't understand, he has cut and run on our allies, and he has enriched himself at the expense of the United States of America. In Syria, he has created a bigger-than-ever humanitarian crisis. He has helped ISIS get another foothold, a new lease on life. I sit on the Armed Services Committee. I talk with our military leaders about this. (Interrupt) I was in Iraq and went through the neighborhoods that ISIS destroyed. (Interrupt)We need to get out, but we need to do this through a negotiated solution. There is no military solution in this region. Senator Warren, you support a So, look, I want to get what works done. I want to use the method we used, for P D, I voluntary gun buyback of assault- example, with machine guns. We registered them, we put in a huge penalty if you style weapons, as well. Why not a didn't register them, and a huge tax on them, and then let people turn them in, and it mandatory one? got machine guns out of the hands of people. But the problem here that we need to focus on is, first, how widespread gun violence is. As you‘ve rightly identified, it‘s not just about mass shootings. It‘s what happens in neighborhoods all across this country. It is about suicide, and it is about domestic violence. This is not going to be a one and done, that we do one thing or two things or three things and then we're done. We have to reduce gun violence overall. And the question we have to ask is, why hasn't it happened? You say we're so close. We have been so close. I stood in the United States Senate in 2013...(Interrupt)... when 54 senators voted in favor of gun legislation and it didn't pass because of the filibuster.(Interrupt) We have got to attack the corruption and repeal the filibuster or the gun industry will always have a veto over what happens. Senator Warren, like Senator Sanders Well, I say, I will out-work, out-organize, and outlast anyone, and that includes F D and Vice President Biden, if you win Donald Trump, Mike Pence, or whoever the Republicans get stuck with. Look, the the presidency, you would be the way I see this, the way we're going to win is by addressing head-on what millions of oldest president ever inaugurated in a Americans know in their bones, and that is that the wealthy and the well-connected first term. You would be 71. Forty have captured our democracy, and they're making it work for themselves and percent of Democratic primary voters leaving everyone else behind. And political pundits and Washington insiders and, Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 85
say they think a candidate under the shoot, people in our own party don't want to admit that. They think that running age of 70 is more likely to defeat some kind of vague campaign that nibbles around the edges of big problems in this President Trump. What do you say to country is a winning strategy. They are wrong. If all Democrats can promise is after them? Donald Trump it will be business as usual, then we will lose. Democrats win when we call out what's broken and we show how to fix it. Democrats will win when we fight for the things that touch people's lives, things like childcare and health care and housing costs. Democrats will win when we give people a reason to get in the fight. Look, I'm not willing to give up and let a handful of monopolists dominate our F R economy and our democracy. It's time to fight back. Think about it this way. When you talk about how it works in competition, about 8 percent, 9 percent of all retail sales happen at bricks and sticks stores, happen at Walmart. About 49 percent of all sales online happen in one place: that's Amazon. It collects information from every little business, and then Amazon does something else. It runs the platform, gets all the information, and then goes into competition with those little businesses. Look, you get to be the umpire in the baseball game, or you get to have a team, but you don't get to do both at the same time. We need to enforce our antitrust laws, break up these giant companies that are dominating, big tech, big pharma, big oil, all of them. So, look, I don't just want to push Donald Trump off Twitter. I want to push him out P R, I of the White House. That's our job. (Interrupt)But let's figure -- no. Let's figure out…(Interrupt)... why it is that we have had laws on the books for antitrust for over a century, and yet for decades now, we've all called on how the big drug companies are calling the shots in Washington, big ag, how the gun industry, big tech -- you know, we really need to address the elephant in the room, and that is how campaigns are financed. (Interrupt) I announced this morning -- I announced this morning that I'm not going to take any money from big tech executives, from Wall Street executives. We've already agreed, Bernie and I, we're not taking any money from big pharma executives. You can't go behind closed doors and take the money of these executives and then turn around and expect that these are the people who are actually finally going to enforce the laws. We need campaign finance rules and practices... (Interrupt) ... that support us all. (Interrupt) Yes. Look, I think all of the rules should apply across the board. I don't have a problem P R with that. What I do have a problem with is that if we're going to talk seriously about breaking up big tech, then we should ask if people are taking money from the big tech executives. If we're going to talk seriously about breaking up big drug companies, we should ask if people are financing their campaigns by taking money from big drug executives. If we are going to talk about Wall Street and having some serious regulation over Wall Street, we should ask if people are funding their campaigns by taking money from those executives. Senator Warren, would you consider I think there are a number of options. I think, as Mayor Buttigieg said, there are P D, I adding more justices to the Supreme many different ways. People are talking about different options, and I think we may Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 86
Court to protect Roe v. Wade? Your have to talk about them. But on Roe v. Wade, can we just pause for a minute here? I response? lived in an America where abortion was illegal, and rich women still got abortions, because they could travel, they could go to places where it was legal. What we're talking about now is that the people who are denied access to abortion are the poor, are the young, are 14-year-olds who were molested by a family member. And we now have support across this country. Three out of four Americans believe in the rule of Roe v. Wade. When you've got three out of four Americans supporting it, we should be able to get that passed through Congress. (Interrupt) We should not leave this to the Supreme Court. We should do it through democracy, because we can. So you started this question with how you got something done. You know, N R, I following the financial crash of 2008, I had an idea for a consumer agency that would keep giant banks from cheating people. And all of the Washington insiders and strategic geniuses said, don't even try, because you will never get it passed. And sure enough, the big banks fought us. The Republicans fought us. Some of the Democrats fought us. But we got that agency passed into law. It has now forced big banks to return more than $12 billion directly to people they cheated. I served in the Obama administration. I know what we can do by executive authority, and I will use it. In Congress, on the first day, I will pass my anti-corruption bill, which will beat back the influence of money... (Interrupt)... and repeal the filibuster. And the third, we want to get something done in America, we have to get out there and fight... (Interrupt)... for the things that touch people's lives. I am deeply grateful to President Obama, who fought so hard to make sure that N R,I agency was passed into law, and I am deeply grateful to every single person who fought for it and who helped pass it into law. But understand…(Interrupt) Thank you. But understand this. It was a dream big, fight hard. People told me, go for something little, go for something small, go for something that the big corporations will be able to accept. (Interrupt)I said, no, let's go for an agency that will make structural change in our economy.(Interrupt)And President Obama said, I will fight for that, and he sometimes had to fight against people in his own administration. We have... (Interrupt)We have to be willing to make good, big, structural change. Now, people who are struggling to pay health care are fighting today. People who P R are getting crushed by student loans are in a fight today. People who are getting stopped by the police or paid less because of the color of their skin are in a fight today. And anyone who doesn't understand that Americans are already in these fights is not someone who is likely to win them. For me, this is about knowing what's broken, knowing how to fix it, and, yes, I'm willing to get out there and fight for it. So in that spirit, we'd like you to tell You ask about a surprising friend. For me, it would be Charles Fried. Twenty-seven F D, R us about a friendship that you've had years ago, when I was under consideration for a job, he was someone who had been that would surprise us and what George Bush, the first, solicitor general, a deeply principled Republican. And we Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 87
impact it's had on you and your didn't agree on much. I was far more liberal than he was. But he also was willing to beliefs. listen to my work about what's happening to America's middle class. And Charles engaged with it over and over and ultimately is the person who made sure I got the job. You know, I grew up out in Oklahoma. I have three elder brothers. They all served in the military. Two of the three are still Republicans. I love all three of my brothers. And there are a lot of things that we're divided on, but there are core things that we believe in together. We want to see all of our children get a good start in life. We don't want to see any of our friends or neighbors not get covered by health care. We're willing to get out there for the things we believe in. Look, people across this country, whether they're Democrats, independents, or Republicans, they know what's broken. They know that we have an America that's working better and better and better for a thinner and thinner and thinner slice at the top and leaving everyone else behind. People across this country, regardless of party, are ready to say no more, we want an America that works for everyone. 2020 is our moment in history. It is a deep honor to be here, to be in this fight. I know what's broken. I know how to fix it. And we are building a grassroots movement to get it done that includes everyone. 20-Nov-19 Senator Warren, you have said Of course I will. And the obvious answer is to say, first, read the Mueller report, all F D already that you've seen enough to 442 pages of it, that showed how the president tried to obstruct justice, and when convict the president and remove him Congress failed to act at that moment, and that the president felt free to break the from office. You and four of your law again and again and again. And that's what's happened with Ukraine. We have to colleagues on this stage tonight who establish the principle: no one is above the law. We have a constitutional are also U.S. senators may soon have responsibility, and we need to meet it. But I want to add one more part based on to take that vote. Will you try to today's testimony, and that is, how did Ambassador Sondland get there? You know, convince your Republican colleagues this is not a man who had any qualifications, except one: He wrote a check for a in the Senate to vote the same way? million dollars. And that tells us about what's happening in Washington, the And if so, how? corruption, how money buys its way into Washington. You know, I raised this months ago about the whole notion that donors think they're going to get ambassadorships on the other side. And I've taken a pledge. Anyone who wants to give me a big donation, don't ask to be an ambassador, because I'm not going to have that happen. I asked everyone who's running for president to join me in that and not a single person has so far. I hope what we saw today during the testimony means lots of people will sign on and say we are not going to give away these ambassador posts to the highest bidder. Senator Warren, you have cast So I think the way we achieve our goals and bring our country together is we talk P D yourself as a fighter. If you were about the things that unite us, and that is that we want to build an America that elected, though, you would be works for the people, not one that just works for rich folks. You know, I have walking into an existing fight, a proposed a two cent wealth tax. That is a tax for everybody who has more than $50 country that is already very divided billion in assets, your first $50 billion is free and clear. But your 50 billionth and over the Trump presidency, among first dollar, you've got to pitch in 2 cents. And when you hit a billion dollars, you've Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 88
other things. Do you see that divide got to pinch in a few pennies more. Here's the thing. Doing a wealth tax is not about as permanent? Or do you need to punishing anyone. It's about saying, you built something great in this country? Good bring the country together if you for you. But you did it using workers all of us helped pay to educate. You did it become president to achieve your using -- you're getting your goods on roads and bridges all of us helped pay for. You goals? did it protected by police and firefighters all of us helped pay the salaries for. So when you make it big, when you make it really big, when you make it top one tenth of one percent big, pitch in two cents so everybody else gets a chance to make it. And here's the thing. That's something that Democrats care about, independents care about, and Republicans care about, because regardless of party affiliation, people understand across this country, our government is working better and better for the billionaires, for the rich, for the well-connected, and worse and worse for everyone else. We come together when we acknowledge that and say we're going to make real change. Sure. So let me just tell you what we can do with that two cent wealth tax. Two P R cents on the top one-tenth of one percent in this country, and we can provide universal child care for every baby in this country ages zero to five. That is transformative. We can provide universal pre-K for every 3-year-old and 4-year-old in America. We can stop exploiting the women, largely black and brown women, who do this work. And we can raise the wages of every childcare worker and pre- schoolteacher in America. We can put $800 billion new federal dollars into all of our public schools. We can make college tuition-free for every kid. We can put $50 billion into historically black colleges and universities. And we can cancel student loan debt for 95 percent of the folks who've got it. Two cent wealth tax and we can invest in an entire generation's future. So I just -- the idea behind what is fair, today, the 99 percent in America are on track P R,I to pay about 7.2 percent of their total wealth in taxes. (Interrupt) The top one-tenth of one percent that I want to say pay two cents more, they'll pay 3.2 percent in America. I'm tired of freeloading billionaires. I think it's time that we ask those at the very top to pay more so that every single one of our children gets a real...(end) Let's talk about Medicare for all. So I look out and I see tens of millions of Americans who are struggling to pay their P D Senator Warren, you are running on medical bills, 37 million people who decided not to have a prescription filled Medicare for all. Democrats have because they just can't afford it, people who didn't take the tests the doctor been winning elections even in red recommended because they just can't afford it. So here is my plan. Let's bring as states with a very different message many people in and get as much help to the American people as we can as fast as we on health care: protecting can. On day one as president, I will do -- bring down the cost of prescription drugs Obamacare. Democrats are divided on things like insulin and EpiPens. That's going to save tens of millions, hundreds of on this issue. What do you say to millions of dollars for people. I'm going to defend the Affordable Care Act from the voters who are worried that your sabotage of the Trump administration. And in the first 100 days, I want to bring in position on Medicare for all could 135 million people into Medicare for all at no cost to them. Everybody under the age cost you critical votes in the general of 18, everybody who has a family of four income less than $50,000. I want to lower Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 89
election? the age of Medicare to 50 and expand Medicare coverage to include vision and dental and long-term care. And then in the third year, when people have had a chance to feel it and taste it and live with it, we're going to vote and we're going to want Medicare for all. Yes. Think of it this way. Our housing problem in America is a problem on the F R supply side, and that means that the federal government stopped building new housing a long time ago, affordable housing. Also, private developers, they've gone up to McMansions. They're not building the little two bedroom, one bath house that I grew up in, garage converted to be a bedroom for my three brothers. So I've got a plan for 3.2 million new housing units in America. Those are housing units for working families, for the working poor, for the poor poor, for seniors who want to age in place, for people with disabilities, for people who are coming back from being incarcerated. It's about tenants' rights. But there's one more piece. Housing is how we build wealth in America. The federal government has subsidized the purchase of housing for decades for white people and has said for black people you're cut out of the deal. That was known as red-lining. When I built a housing plan, it's not only a housing plan about building new units. It's a housing plan about addressing what is wrong about government-sponsored discrimination, how we need to address it, and we need to say we're going to reverse it. Senator Warren, only about 1 percent Yes, I think it should be. You know, all three of my brothers served in the military. F D of Americans serve in the United One was career military. The other two also served. I think it's an important part of States military right now. Should that who we are as Americans. And I think the notion of shared service is important. It's number be higher? how we help bring our nation together. It's how people learn to work together from different regions, people who grew up differently. It's also about how families share that sacrifice. I remember what it was like when I was a little girl. My brother, my oldest brother, who served five-and-a-half years off and on in combat in Vietnam, what it was like for my mother every day to check the mailbox, had we heard from Don Reed? How is he doing? And if there was a letter, she was brighter than the day. And if there wasn't, she would say, well, maybe tomorrow. This is about building for our entire nation. And I believe we should do that. I also believe we should have other service opportunities in this country. So, for example, what I want to do is for our federal lands, I want to bring in 10,000 people who want to be able to serve in our federal lands to be able to help rebuild our national forests and national parks as a way to express both their public service and their commitment to fighting back against climate change. We can do this as a nation. So I think it is really important that we actually talk about what we're willing to get P R in the fight for. And I just want to give one example around this. Senator Harris rightly raised the question of economic justice. Let me give a specific example, and that is student loan debt. Right now in America, African-Americans are more likely to borrow money to go to college, borrow more money while they're in college, and Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 90
have a harder time paying that debt off after they get out. Today in America, a new study came out, 20 years out, whites who borrowed money, 94 percent of them have paid off their student loan debt, 5 percent of African-Americans have paid it off. I believe that means everyone on this stage should be embracing student loan debt forgiveness. It will help close the black-white wealth gap. Let's do something tangible and real to make change in this country. Senator Warren, back to you. You've If there are parts of the wall that are not useful in our defense, of course we should P D said that the border wall that do it. The real point here is that we need to stop this manmade crisis at the border. President Trump has proposed is, Trump is the one who has created this crisis, and he has done it in no small part by quote, "a monument to hate and helping destabilize the governments even further in Central America. He has division." Would you ask taxpayers withdrawn aid. That means that families have to flee for their lives, have to flee for to pay to take down any part of the any economic opportunity. You know, when I found out that our government was wall on the nation's southern border? actually taking away children from their families, I went down to the border. I went down there immediately. I was in McAllen, Texas, and I just hope everyone remembers what this looks like. There's like a giant Amazon warehouse filled with cages of women, cages of men, and cages of little girls and little boys. I spoke to a woman who was in the cage of nursing mothers, and she told me she'd given a drink to a police officer and that the word had come down from the gangs that she was helping the police. She knew what that meant. She wrapped up her baby and she ran for the border. We need to treat the people who come here with dignity and with respect. A great nation does not separate children from their families. We need to live our values at the border every single day. Just this weekend, Louisiana re- Look, I believe that abortion rights are human rights. I believe that they are also P D elected a Democratic governor, John economic rights. And protecting the right of a woman to be able to make decisions Bel Edwards. He has signed one of about her own body is fundamentally what we do and what we stand for as a the country's toughest laws Democratic Party. Understand this. When someone makes abortion illegal in restricting abortion. Is there room in America, rich women will still get abortions. It's just going to fall hard on poor the Democratic Party for someone women. It's going to fall hard on girls, women who don't even know that they're like him, someone who can win in a pregnant because they have been molested by an uncle. I want to be an America deep red state but who does not where everybody has a chance. And I know it can be a hard decision for people. But support abortion rights? Senator here's the thing. When it comes down to that decision, a woman should be able to Warren? call on her mother, she should be able to call on her partner, she should be able to call on her priest or her rabbi. But the one entity that should not be in the middle of that decision is the government. Senator Warren, I'm going to push I have made clear what I think the Democratic Party stands for. I'm not here to try to N D you on this a little bit for a specific drive anyone out of this party. I'm not here to try to build fences. But I am here to answer to the question. Governor say, this is what I will fight for as president of the United States. The women of John Bel Edwards in Louisiana is an America can count on that. anti-abortion governor who has signed abortion restrictions in Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 91
Louisiana. Is there room for him in the Democratic Party with those politics? 19-Dec-19 Senator Warren, why do you think --- So, I see this as a constitutional moment. Last night, the president was impeached, P D - why do you think more Americans and everyone now in the Senate who has taken a constitutional oath to uphold our don't agree that this is the right thing Constitution -- and that doesn't mean loyalty to an individual, it doesn't mean loyalty to do? And what more can you say? to a political party, it means loyalty to our country -- and that vote will play out over the next several weeks. But the way I see this is we've now seen the impact of corruption, and that's what's clearly on the stage in 2020, is how we are going to run against the most corrupt president in living history. You know, this president has made corruption originally his argument that he would drain the swamp, and, yet, he came to Washington, broke that promise, and has done everything he can for the wealthy and the well-connected, from tax breaks to ambassadorships. We have to prosecute the case against him, and that means we need a candidate for president who can draw the sharpest distinction between the corruption of the Trump administration and a Democrat who is willing to get out and fight not for the wealthy and well-connected but to fight for everyone else. That's why I'm in this race. I do. Well, I want to answer this question. Because here's the problem. I'm proud to P R,I stand on a stage with Democrats who understand that a rise in GDP, rise in corporate profits is not being felt by millions of families across this country. I'm proud to stand on a stage with people who see that America's middle class is being hollowed out and that working families and poor people are being left behind. What we need to talk about, though, is why that has happened. And the answer is we've got a government that works great for those with money and doesn't work for much of anyone else. We have a government that works great for giant drug companies, just not for someone trying to fill a prescription. Works great for people who want to make money on private prisons and private detention centers at our border, just not for the people whose lives are torn apart. Works great for giant oil companies that want to drill everywhere, but not for the rest of us who see climate change bearing down upon us. And when you see a government that works great for the wealthy and the well-connected and for no one else, that is corruption, pure and simple. And we need to call it out for what it is. Senator Warren, I have a question for Oh, they're just wrong. Let's start with a wealth tax. The idea of a two-cent tax on P D, I you. Every candidate on the stage has the great fortunes in this country, $50 million and above. For two cents, what can we proposed tax increases on the do? We can invest in the rest of America. We can provide universal childcare, early wealthy. But you have especially childhood education for every baby in this country, age 0 to 5, universal pre-K for ambitious plans that, apart from every 3-year-old and 4-year-old, and raise the wages of every childcare worker and health care, would hike taxes an preschool teacher. We can do even more for our public schools, for college additional $8 trillion over the decade, graduates. We can cancel student loan debt. But think about the economic impact of Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 92
the biggest tax increase since World that. You leave two cents with the billionaires, they're not eating more pizzas, they're War II. How do you answer top not buying more cars. We invest that 2 percent in early childhood education and economists who say taxes of this childcare, that means those babies get top-notch care. It means their mamas can magnitude would stifle growth and finish their education. It means their mamas and their daddies can take on real jobs, investment? harder jobs, longer hours. (Interrupt)We can increase productivity in this country. And we can start building this economy from the ground up. That's how we build it in small towns. That's how we build it in rural America. And that's how we built it in urban America. An economy that works, not for Wall Street, but that works for Main Street. Senator Warren, a new question to So I see right now is we've got to get the carbon -- we've got to stop putting more P D, I you, Senator Warren. Many of our carbon into the air. We've got to get the carbon out of the air and out of the water. Western allies rely heavily on And that means that we need to keep some of our nuclear in place. I will not build nuclear energy because it's efficient, more nuclear. I want to put the energy, literally, and the money and the resources affordable, and virtually carbon-free. behind clean energy and by increasing by tenfold what we put into science, what we And many climate experts believe put into research and development. We need to do what we do best, and that is that it's impossible to realize your innovate our way out of this problem and be a world leader. But understand, the goal of net zero emissions by the biggest climate problem we face is the politicians in Washington who keep saying year 2050 without utilizing nuclear the right thing but continue to take money from the oil industry, continue to bow energy. So can you have it both ways down to the lobbyists, to the lawyers, to the think-tanks, to the bought-and-paid-for on this issue? experts. America understands that we've got to make change and we're running out of time, that climate change threatens every living thing on this planet. But getting Congress to act, you know, they just don't want to hear it. And if we don't attack the corruption first, if we don't attack the corruption head-on, then we're not going to be able to make the changes we need to make on climate, on gun safety, on drug pricing, on all of the big problems that face us.(Interrupt)We need a Washington that doesn't just work for the rich and the powerful. We need one that works for our families. Senator Warren, President Obama Yes. It is time to close this detention facility. It not only costs us money, it is an P D pledged to close the detention camp international embarrassment. We have to be an America that lives our values every at Guantanamo Bay but could not. single day. We can't be an America that stands up and asks people to fight alongside Forty prisoners remain there. Last us, as we did with the Kurds in fighting ISIS, and then turn around in the blink of a year, U.S. taxpayers paid $540 tweet and say that we're turning our backs on the people who stood beside us. After million to keep Guantanamo open. that, who wants to be an ally of the United States? We have to be an America that Would you pledge to finally close the understands the difference and recognizes the difference between our allies, the detention facility? And if elected, people who will work alongside us, and the dictators who would do us harm. And how will you do it? we need to treat our allies better than we treat the dictators. That needs to be our job as an America. We have -- we have the finest military on Earth. All three of my brothers served. And we have people on this stage who have served, and I am deeply grateful for that. Our military is strong and important, but we need to be an America that relies on our State Department, that relies on diplomacy, that relies on our Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 93
economic power and that relies on working together with the rest of the world to build a world that is sustainable environmentally and economically for everyone. I'd also be the youngest woman ever inaugurated. I believe that President Obama F R,D, I was talking about who has power in America, whose voices get heard. I believe he's talking about women and people of color and trans people and people whose voices just so often get shoved out. And for me, the best way to understand that is to look at how people are running their campaigns in 2020. You know, I made the decision when I decided to run not to do business as usual. And now I'm proud to have been in 100,000 selfies. That's 100,000 hugs and handshakes and stories, stories from people who are struggling with student loan debt, stories from people who can't pay their medical bills, stories from people who can't find childcare. Now, most of the people on this stage run a traditional campaign. And that means going back and forth from coast to coast to rich people and people who can put up $5,000 bucks or more in order to have a picture taken, in order to have a conversation, and in order maybe to be considered to be an ambassador. (Interrupt) Those selfies -- no, I want to finish this. Those selfies cost nobody anything. And I get it. In a democracy, we all have a lot of different points of view. And everybody gets one vote. But here's the thing. People who can put down $5,000 to have a picture taken don't have the same priorities as people who are struggling with student loan debt or who are struggling to pay off medical debt. I want -- I'm running a campaign where people whose voices get heard. We can't have...(interrupt) We can't have people who can put down $5,000 for a check drown out the voices of everyone else. (Interrupt) They don't in my campaign, and they won't in my White House. So the mayor just recently had a fundraiser that was held in a wine cave full of P R crystals and served $900-a-bottle wine. Think about who comes to that. He had promised that every fundraiser he would do would be open door, but this one was closed door. We made the decision many years ago that rich people in smoke-filled rooms would not pick the next president of the United States. Billionaires in wine caves should not pick the next president of the United States. I do not sell access to my time. I don't do call time with millionaires and N R, I billionaires.(Interrupt) I don't meet -- I don't meet behind closed doors with big dollar donors. And, look, I have taken one that ought to be an easy step for everyone here. I've said to anyone who wants to donate to me, if you want to donate to me, that's fine, but don't come around later expecting to be named ambassador, because that's what goes on in these high-dollar fundraisers. I said no, and I asked everybody on this stage to join me. This ought to be an easy step. And here's the problem. If you can't stand up and take the steps that are relatively easy, can't stand up to the wealthy and well connected when it's relatively easy when you're a candidate, then how can the American people believe you're going to stand up to the wealthy and well-connected when you're president and it's really hard? Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 94
I'd like to turn to a new subject, and So, as I've talked about before, I have a two cent wealth tax proposed for N D that is, of course, education. Senator millionaires and billionaires, and that gives us enough money to invest in all of our Warren, you've proposed free public babies, age 0 to 5, to put an historic $800 billion investment in public schools K college tuition and student loan through 12, and that will permit us to offer technical school, two-year college, four- forgiveness for most families. Why year college for every single person who wants an education, cancel student loan should wealthy families be able to debt for 50 -- put a $50 billion investment in our historically black colleges and send their kids to public college for universities, and cancel student loan debt for 43 million Americans. Look, this is free? Why not concentrate that about money, but this is also about values. We need to make an investment in our government help on those most in future, and the best way to do that is let's invest in the public education of our need? children. That starts when you're babies and it goes long after high school. We want to have families. I meet families every day in the selfie lines who talk about what it means to be crushed by student loan debt. That's why I have a proposal popular among Democrats, popular among Republicans, popular among independents, to ask those at the top to pay a little more so somebody can get rid of that student loan debt so they can make an investment in themselves, start a small business, buy a car, create a future for themselves and for this country. So -- no, wait, wait, wait. (Interrupt)No. He mentioned me by name. (Interrupt) He F R,I mentioned me by name. Look, the mayor wants billionaires to pay one tuition for their own kids. I want a billionaire to pay enough to cover tuition for all of our kids, because that's how we build a future. The other part is we've got to deal with student loan debt. And right now, most of the people on this stage are nibbling around the edges of a huge student loan debt burden that disproportionally affects people of color. African-Americans are more likely to have to borrow money to go to school, more likely to borrow more money while they're in school, and have a harder time paying it off. We want to make an investment in the future? Then open up education for all of our kids. That's how we build a future. So I was a special education teacher. And I loved that work, because it gave me a P R chance to work straight out with people to recognize the worth of every human being. I had 4- to 6-year-olds who were in special ed. And what do we need to do? That's why I have a plan, as a special ed teacher, to fully fund IDEA, so every child with disabilities will get the full education they need. My housing plan is about investing in more housing across this country, in rural America, in urban America, in small town America, but it's also about making sure that people who want to live independently, people who have disabilities, will have housing available to them. I make a part of my jobs bill that we are going to make sure -- as president, I will make sure that the people who want to bid on federal contracts are treating people with disabilities fairly and paying them fairly. You've got to go at it at every part of what we do, because as a nation, this is truly a measure of who we are. We believe in treating these, the least of thy brethren, as people of value. And that is how we make a better America. Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 95
The transgender community has been marginalized in every way possible. And one P R thing that the president of the United States can do is lift up attention, lift up their voices, lift up their lives. Here's a promise I make. I will go to the Rose Garden once every year to read the names of transgender women, of people of color, who have been killed in the past year. I will make sure that we read their names so that as a nation we are forced to address the particular vulnerability on homelessness. I will change the rules now that put people in prison based on their birth sex identification rather than their current identification. I will do everything I can to make sure that we are an America that leaves no one behind. We'd like -- we'd like to bring you So this is about costs. It's about costs on middle-class families. Last year, 36 million P R,D, I into this discussion. The same Americans didn't have a prescription filled because they couldn't afford it. And those question to you that I posed to are people with health insurance, as well. People who can't do the co-pays, people Senator Sanders, if Congress rejects a who can't do the deductibles, people who find out that the drug is not covered. So Medicare for all proposal and you're here's how I approach this. I want to do the most good I can for the most people as the president, are there smaller quickly as possible. On day one, I'm going to attack the prices on commonly used specific measures that you could drugs, like EpiPens and insulin, and bring down those prices. The president can do pursue with bipartisan support to that -- I love saying this -- all by herself. And I will do it. That's going to save decrease costs and expand coverage? families hundreds of millions of dollars. And then in the first 100 days, because I found a way to pay for full health care coverage for everyone without raising taxes on middle-class families... (Interrupt)... I'm going to make available to people for a full health care coverage for 135 million people. It will be at no cost at all. And they can opt into that system. (Interrupt) For others, it will be at a low cost. We have got to start moving and move fast. (Interrupt) We can do that -- we can do that on 50 votes. I will ask for forgiveness. I know that sometimes I get really worked up, and F R sometimes I get a little hot. I don't really mean to. What happens is, when you do 100,000 selfies with people...... you hear enough stories about people who are really down to their last moments. You know, I met someone just last week in Nevada who said that he has diabetes and that he has access to a prescription because he's a veteran. But his sister has diabetes and his daughter has diabetes, and they simply can't afford insulin. So the three of them spend all of their time figuring out how to stretch one insulin prescription among three people. When I think about what we could do if we get a majority in the House, a majority in the Senate, and get back the White House, we could make this country work for people like that man. And that's why I'm in this fight. 1/14/2020 Senator Warren, in our new CNN- I believe the principal job of the commander-in-chief is to keep America safe. And I P D (9-10 ET) Des Moines Register poll, almost a think that's about judgment. I think it starts with knowing our military. I sit on the third of your supporters say your Senate Armed Services Committee. I work with our generals, with our military ability to lead the military is more of leaders, with our intelligence, but I also visit our troops. I visit our troops around the a weakness than a strength of yours. world. I've been to Afghanistan, to Iraq, to Jordan, to South Korea. I've been to lots Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 96
Why are you best prepared to be of places to talk with our troops. And I fight for our troops, to make sure that they commander-in-chief? get their pay, that they get the housing and medical benefits that they've been promised, that they don't get cheated by giant financial institutions. You know, I have three brothers who were in the military, and I know how much our military families sacrifice. But I also know that we have to think about our defense in very different ways. We have to think about cyber. We have to think about climate. We also have to think about how we spend money. We have a problem with a revolving door in Washington between the defense industry and the Department of Defense and the Pentagon. That is corruption, pure and simple. We need to block that revolving door, and we need to cut our defense budget. We need to depend on all of our tools -- diplomatic, economic, working with our allies -- and not let the defense industry call the shots. Senator Warren, leave combat troops, No, I think we need to get our combat troops out. You know, we have to stop this F D at least some combat troops in the mindset that we can do everything with combat troops. Our military is the finest Middle East, or bring them home? military on Earth and they will take any sacrifice we ask them to take. But we should stop asking our military to solve problems that cannot be solved militarily. Our keeping combat troops there is not helping. We need to work with our allies. We need to use our economic tools. We need to use our diplomatic tools. Now, look, I understand, there are people on this stage, when it comes to Afghanistan, for example, who talk about 5 more years, 10 more years. Shoot, Lindsey Graham talks about leaving troops there for a hundred more years. No one has a solution and an endpoint. We need to get our combat troops out. They are not helping create more safety for the United States or the region. Thank you. Senator Warren -- we're Well, imminent threat. But we need an authorization for the use of military force F R,D going to get to everyone -- but, before we take this nation into combat. That is what the Constitution provides and Senator Warren, what about you? that is what as commander-in-chief I will do. But I just want to be clear. Everyone Are there any circumstances, other on this stage talks about nobody wants endless war. But the question is, when and than a direct attack on the United how do you plan to get out of it? You know, on the Senate Armed Services States, where you would take Committee, we have one general after another in Afghanistan who comes in and military action without congressional says, you know, we've just turned the corner and now it's all going to be different. approval? And then what happens? It's all the same for another year. Someone new comes in and we've just turned the corner. We've turned the corner so many times, we're going in circles in these regions. This has got to stop. It's not enough to say some day we're going to get out. No one on the ground, none of our military can describe what the conditions are for getting out. It's time to get our combat troops home. Senator Warren, you support the I do. I wasn't here. I haven't been in Congress long enough to have voted against P D USMCA. Why is Senator Sanders NAFTA, but I led the fight against the trade deal with Asia and the trade deal with wrong? Europe, because I didn't think it was in the interests of the American people, the American workers, or environmental interests. But we have farmers here in Iowa who are hurting. And they are hurting because of Donald Trump's initiated trade Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 97
wars. We have workers who are hurting because the agreements that have already been cut really don't have enforcement on workers' rights. This new trade deal is a modest improvement. Senator Sanders himself has said so. It will give some relief to our farmers. It will give some relief to our workers. I believe we accept that relief, we try to help the people who need help, and we get up the next day and fight for a better trade deal. We need a coherent trade policy. We need a policy that actually helps our workers, our farmers. We need them at the table, not just to trade policy written for big, international companies. I'm ready to have that fight, but let's help the people who need help right now. You know, our problem is not just that we need corporate responsibility. It has been P R the structure of how these trade deals have been negotiated. The United States has had this strategy for decades. And that strategy has been to have government trade negotiators, a small number, and then surround them with giant multi-national corporation lobbyists and corporate executives, who whisper in the ears of our negotiators and then get deals cut that are great for the giant multi-national corporations, not good for America, not good for American workers, not good for the environment. We need a different approach to trade and it starts by calling out the corruption of these giant corporations that have cut our trade deals. Everybody wants to get to the American market. And we need to put some standards in place. You want to be able to sell your goods here, then you've got to meet some environmental standards. You've got to meet labor standards Senator Warren, what did you think I disagreed. Bernie is my friend, and I am not here to try to fight with Bernie. But, F D when Senator Sanders told you a look, this question about whether or not a woman can be president has been raised, woman could not win the election? and it's time for us to attack it head-on. And I think the best way to talk about who can win is by looking at people's winning record. So, can a woman beat Donald Trump? Look at the men on this stage. Collectively, they have lost 10 elections. The only people on this stage who have won every single election that they've been in are the women...... Amy and me. And the only person on this stage who has beaten an incumbent Republican any time in the past 30 years is me. And here's what I know. The real danger that we face as Democrats is picking a candidate who can't pull our party together or someone who takes for granted big parts of the Democratic constituency. We need a candidate who will excite all parts of the Democratic Party, bring everyone in and give everyone a Democrat to believe in. That's my plan and that is why I'm going to win. So I do think it's the right question, "How do we beat Trump?" And here's the thing. N R Since Donald Trump was elected, women candidates have out-performed men candidates in competitive races. And in 2018, we took back the House; we took back statehouses, because of women candidates and women voters. Look, don't deny that the question is there. Back in the 1960s, people asked, "Could a Catholic win?" Back in 2008, people asked if an African-American could win. In both times the Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 98
Democratic Party stepped up and said yes, got behind their candidate and we changed America. That's who we are. 1/14/2020 So we need to start with what's P R (10-11) happening in America. People are suffering. I'll just pick one: 36 million people last year went to the doctor, got a prescription, this is what they needed to get well, and they couldn't afford to have the prescription filled. They looked at it and said it's either groceries or this prescription. My approach to this is we've got to get as much as help to as many people as quickly as possible. I have worked out a plan where we can do that without raising taxes on middle-class families by one thin dime. What I can do are the things I can do as president on the first day. We can cut the cost of prescription drugs. I'll use the power that's already given to the president to reduce the cost of insulin and EpiPens and HIV- AIDS drugs. Let's get some relief to those families. And I will defend the Affordable Care Act. I've got a plan to expand health care, but let's keep in mind, when we come to a general election, we Democrats may argue among each other about the best way to do health care, but we're going to be up against a Republican incumbent who has cut health care for millions of people and is still trying to do that. I'll take our side of the argument any day. We're going to beat him on this. So I started this by talking about 36 million Americans, including Americans with F R insurance, who just can't even afford to have a prescription filled. We all talk about plans, health care plans that we have, and these plans are paid for. The problem is Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 99
that plans like the mayor's and like the vice president's is that they are an improvement. They are an improvement over where we are right now. But they're a small improvement. And that's why it is that they cost so much less, because by themselves, they're not going to be enough to cover prescriptions for 36 million people who can't afford to get them filled. What we need to do is make the commitment that we know where the money comes from. We can ask those at the very top, the top 1 percent, to pay a little more. Those giant corporations like Chevron and Amazon who paid nothing in taxes, we can have them pay. And we can go after the corporate tax cheats. And when we do that, we have enough money to provide health care for all our people. Yes, we build on the Affordable Care Act, but where we end up is we offer health care to all of our people. And we can offer it at no cost or low cost to all of them. Look, the numbers that the mayor is offering just don't add up. The average family F R in America last year paid $12,000 in some combination of deductibles and co-pays and uncovered expenses and fees. You can't cover that with the kind of money that the mayor is talking about. The way we have to approach this is we've got to build this and we've got to build the alliances to make this happen. I can bring down the cost of prescription drugs like insulin and take hundreds of millions of dollars out of the system immediately in costs. We can get help to families. But we have to be willing to work together. We can let people experience what health care is like when it's you and your doctor, your mental health professional, your nurse practitioner, with no insurance company standing in the middle. Senator Warren, you've called for the So, let's do this both ways. What I also have said is, I'm just going to use the power P D creation of a government-run drug that is available and I will do what a president can do all by herself on the very first manufacturer that would step in if day, and that is lower the prices of certain prescription drugs. I will lower the price there is a drug shortage or a price of insulin. We already have the legal authority with the president to do that. The spike. Why does it make sense for president just hasn't picked up and used it. I will lower the price of EpiPens, of HIV- the government -- for the government AIDS drugs. That's going to bring a lot of relief to a lot of families immediately. to manufacture drugs, especially But, you know, there are a whole lot of drugs, about 90 percent of drugs, that are not when public trust in government is under patent. They're generic drugs. But the drug industry has figured out how to near historic lows? manipulate this industry to keep jerking the prices up and up and up. So my view is, let's give them a little competition. The government lets contracts for all kind of things. They let contracts to build buildings. They let contracts to build military weapons. Let's let the contracts out. Put the contracts out so that we can put more generic drugs out there and drive down those prices. This is a way to make markets work, not to try to move away from the market. You don't have to even use price controls. The whole idea behind it is get some competition out there so the price of these drugs that are no longer under patent drops where it should be. Senator Warren, your education plan No, actually, my plan is universal childcare for everyone. It just has some people P D includes tuition- free public college adding a small payment. But understand this about the plan. I've been there. You Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 100
for all, but you impose an income know, I remember when I was a young mom. I had two little kids, and I had my first limit for free childcare. Why do your real university teaching job. It was hard work. I was excited. But it was childcare plans cover everyone for public that nearly brought me down. We went through one childcare after another, and it college, but not childcare and early just didn't work. If I hadn't been saved by my Aunt Bee -- I was ready to quit my learning? job. And I think about how many women of my generation just got knocked off the track and never got back on, how many of my daughter's generation get knocked off the track and don't get back on, how many mamas and daddies today are getting knocked off the track and never get back on. I have a two cent wealth tax so that we can cover childcare for all of our children, and provide universal pre-K for every 3- year-old and 4- year-old in America, and stop exploiting the people who do this valuable work, largely black and brown women. We can raise the wages of every childcare worker and preschool teacher in America. That's an investment in our babies. That's an investment in their mamas and their daddies. And it's an investment in our teachers and in our economy. So, look, the way I think we need to do this is we need a wealth tax in America. We N R need to ask people with fortunes above $50 million to pay more. And that means that the lowliest millionaire that I would tax under this wealth tax would be paying about $19 million in the first year in taxes. If he wants to send his kid to public university, then I'm OK with that, because what we really need to talk about is the bigger economic picture here. We need to be willing to put a wealth tax in place, to ask those giant corporations that are not paying to pay, because that's how we build an economy and, for those who want to talk about it, bring down the national debt. You do universal childcare and you've got a lot of mamas who can go to work, a lot of mamas who can finish their education. We make that investment in universal college. We've got a lot of people who... Senator Warren, a Senate trial is Look, some things are more important than politics. I took an oath to uphold the P D expected to keep you in Washington Constitution of the United States of America. It says that no one is above the law. in the weeks leading up to the Iowa That includes the president of the United States. We have an impeachment trial. I Caucuses here. How big of a problem will be there because it is my responsibility. But understand this, what that is that for you as you're making your impeachment trial is going to show once again to the American people, and closing pitch to voters here? something we should all be talking about, is the corruption of this administration. That is what lies at heart of it. It is about Donald Trump putting Donald Trump first. Not the American people. Not the interests of the United States of America. Not even helping Ukraine defend against Russia. It is about him helping himself. That is what we need to do to win this election. We need to draw that distinction and show that as Democrats we're not going to be the people who are just out for the big corporations, people who want to help themselves, that we are going to be the party that is willing to fight on the side of the people. That's why we're here. Senator Warren, President Trump is Yes. Climate change threatens every living thing on this planet. And the urgency of P D rolling back major environmental the moment cannot be overstated. I will do everything a president can do all by Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 101
rules to allow pipeline and other herself on the first day. I will roll back the environmental changes that Donald major infrastructure projects to be Trump is putting in place. I will stop all new drilling and mining on federal lands, built without strict environmental and offshore drilling. That will help us get in the right directions. I'll bring in the review. Will you restore those farmers. Farmers can be part of the climate solution. We should see this for the protections and in a way that the next problem it is. Mr. Steyer talks about it being problem number one. Understand this, president can't overturn? we have known about this climate crisis for decades. Back in the 1990s we were calling it global warming, but we knew what it was. Democrats and Republicans back then were working together because no one wanted a problem. But you know what happened? The industry came in and said, we can make big money if we keep them divided and make no change. Priority number one has to be taking back our government from the corruption. That is the only way we will make progress on climate, on gun safety, on health care, on all of the issues that matter to us. Senator Warren, what do you say to So I was born and raised in Oklahoma. I have three older brothers who are all N D voters who like your policies but retired, who are all back there still. And two of my three brothers are Republicans. they're worried they will scare away And, sure, there are a lot of things we disagree on, and we can take to our corners swing voters you need to win this and do the Democratic/Republican talking points, but the truth is there's a whole lot race in November? we agree on. You know, my brother is just furious over Chevron and Eli Lilly and Amazon, that are giant corporations making billions of dollars in tax -- make billions of dollars in profits and pay nothing in taxes. My brother said, "I don't get this. I have to pay my taxes. Somebody has to keep the roads paved and the schools open and pay for our defense." They understand that we have an America right now that's working great for those at the top; it's just not working for anyone else. We have a chance to unite -- unite as Democrats, but also with independents and Republicans who are sick of living in a country that's working great for the politicians that are taking the money; it's working great for the lobbyists; it's working great for the corporate executives, it's just not working for everyone else. I'm building the grassroots movement, leading the fight. We're going to make this America work for everyone else. That is how we're going to beat Donald Trump. 7-Feb-20 Senator Warren, you reportedly said Oh, Bernie and I have been friends for a long time and we have a lot of things in N D back in 20 8, ―I‘m a capitalist to my common and we can have a lot of things that we differ on. But there‘s fundamental bones.‖ Senator Sanders says, ―I‘m question about how we bring our party together. We have to think about it in new not.‖ Is that your biggest difference ways. People across this country, whether they‘re Democrats, independents, or with Senator Sanders? Republicans, understand that we‘ve got a government right now that works great for those at the top. Works great for giant drug companies, just not for people trying to get a prescription filled. Works great for oil companies that want to drill everywhere, just not for the rest of us who see climate change bearing down upon us. When you see a government that works great for those who can hire armies of lobbyists and lawyers and make big campaign donations and it‘s not working so great for everyone else, that is corruption, pure and simple, and we need to call it out for what it is. Corruption, and that‘s what we can run on. We bring our party together. It‘s an Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 102
issue we can all agree on and fight for to end the corruption. We‘re the Democrats, we should be the party on the side of hardworking people and we can bring in independents and Republicans on that. They hate the corruption as well. My anti- corruption plan, good for Republicans and Democrats. That‘s not only how we bring our party together. That‘s how we‘re going to win in November. So I think we need to think about healthcare a little differently and that is, 36 million P R Americans last year couldn‘t afford to have a prescription filled and that includes people with health insurance. I want everyone in here to think about what that means. They were worried enough or sick enough that they went to a doctor, a doctor looked at it and says that‘s serious enough to write a prescription. They walked out and then said, it‘s either that or groceries. It‘s that or pay them rent on time. We have got to change our healthcare system. The way [no audio or video 00:18:34] Help to the most people as quickly as we can. How about we start with what a president can do, I love saying this, all by herself. On day one, I will defend the Affordable Care Act and I will use march in orders to reduce the cost of commonly used prescription drugs like insulin and HIV, AIDS, drugs and EpiPens. We can start making healthcare better for Americans from the beginning, but we have to agree to do that. We are the Democrats, we are on the side of expanding healthcare. When we come up against Donald Trump, the team that has been trying to take away healthcare from millions of people, what‘s going to matter most is we are the people on the side of those who need healthcare across this country. That‘s who Democrats are. We come to you, of course, just 48 Look, I think no one is above the law, and that includes the President of the United N D hours after the acquittal of President States. We watched on Wednesday as Republicans, all but one locked arms to Trump. A process that has certainly protect him from impeachment, but we need to reestablish the rule of law in this crystallized the divide in our country. country. I believe in an independent commission, in our justice department that Senator Warren, want to start with investigates crimes committed by our own government. It is an important part of you. You have said that on day one accountability. It is an important part for every administration, that we hold of your presidency, one of your first ourselves accountable to the American people. Look, people around this country are orders of business will be to order losing faith in our government. They‘re losing faith that government works for them. your justice department to launch They see a government that just works great if you‘re rich. It works great if you‘re a new investigations into the Trump lobbyist. It works great if you‘re a corporate executive, but they see themselves and Administration. After a grueling their children with less and less and less, and we could do something about it. It‘s impeachment, and what is likely to not enough simply to talk about the future. We have to be willing to stand up to be a polarizing election, is those who now control our government, and make that government instead work for investigating President Trump the us. We can do child care in this country for every baby. We can invest in our public best way to try to unify the country? schools. We can cancel student loan debt for 43 million Americans, but only if we are willing to take control of our government away from the giant corporations and billionaires, return it to the people. This is about our government. This is about our democracy. This is about our future. Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 103
We were on the ground in No. Look, I sit on the Senate Armed Services Committee, so I get the briefings from N D Afghanistan and Iraq in recent the generals on a regular basis. I‘ve been to Afghanistan, to Iraq. I‘ve been to months and the generals told us that Jordan. I‘ve been throughout the region. I‘ve been there with John McCain. I‘ve the US needs some US presence on been there with Lindsey raham to ask the hard questions about what‘s happening, the ground, US special forces some to ask our generals, to ask their generals to ask people who are on the ground. And presence to go after ISIS and the the bottom line is, nobody sees a solution to this war. Nobody can describe what terrorists. If your commander-in- winning looks like. All they can describe is endless war. And I realized there are chief, would you listen to the people on this debate stage who are willing to say, yeah, we‘ll leave our troops there generals or do they fall into the for five more years, for 0 more years. Lindsey raham has said he‘s willing to category of the generals you‘ve leave troops for 100 more years. And yet, what has all these years of war brought mentioned before? us? Right now, the Afghan Government controls less than 60% of the land. People don‘t have faith in it. It‘s a corrupt government. The opium trade is higher than ever. Look, we sent our troops in and they did their best. They were there for us, but we need to be there for them. And that means, not send our troops to do work that cannot be solved militarily. It is time to bring our combat troops home. It is time to stop this endless war in Afghanistan. So if the generals came to you and So I want to hear the plan, not just a, we need it now, we need it for the next day, we P D said, we need US Special Forces, need it for the six months. And I want to know where our allies are. We all have an some footprint in Iraq and interest in dealing with terrorism and controlling terrorism, but that means it can‘t Afghanistan, would you listen? just be the United States waging endless war. That does not make us safer. It does Would you leave them? not make the region safer. It does not make the world safer. We should work with our allies in managing terrorism, but we need to end this war in Afghanistan. We cannot wait five more years, or 10 more years, or until we turn the corner 10 more times. We need to bring our combat troops home. Senator Warren, we‘d like to go over Look, we have a gun violence problem in America. It is about the mass shootings F D to you now. [inaudible 00:14:18] I that we hear about in our schools and that frighten us, about it in theaters and in want to ask you this question here churches. It‘s also though about shootings that occur on sidewalks and in though. Laws can do so much, if you playgrounds, often in communities of color that are hit hardest, but there are no could change one thing about headlines over those. It‘s also about suicide and the increasing lethality of suicide America‘s gun culture, what would it because of the availability of guns. It is also about the increased chances that it‘s be? usually a woman will die of domestic violence if she is with a violent man and a gun is in the home. We need to think of this problem not as one and done or three things and done. We need to think of it just like we did on auto safety. We just keep coming back. We treat it like the public health emergency that it is. But the question we should be asking ourselves is when America, across this country, including gun owners, agree in certain basic things, universal background checks, get assault weapons off the streets. Why can we not even get a vote in the United States Senate. And the answer is 90%, think about this, more than 90% of Americans agree on this. We can‘t get a vote in the United States Senate because it is the gun industry that continues to call the shots. Until we attack the corruption in Washington, the Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 104
influence of money on campaigns and lobbying, we‘re not going to be able to meet our promises. And one more, until we agree that we are willing to roll back to filibuster, the gun industry is going to continue to have a veto and we will never make the changes we make. We have to be willing to build a future that works, not for a gun industry, but that works for the rest of America and protects our children. Look, I‘ve lived in an America in which abortion was illegal and rich women still N R got abortions and that‘s what we have to remember about this. States are heading toward trying to ban abortion outright and the Supreme Court seems headed in exactly that direction as well. If we are going to protect the people of the United States of America and we are going to protect our rights to have dominion over our own bodies, then it‘s going to mean we can‘t simply rely on the courts. Three out of every four people in America believe right now that the rule of Roe versus Wade should be the law. That means we should be pushing for a Congressional solution as well. It is time to have a national law to protect the right of a woman‘s choice. Senator Warren, is that a substantial No. You have to own up to the fact, and it‘s important to own up to the facts about P R,D answer from Mayor Buttigieg? how race has totally permeated our criminal justice system. For the exact same crimes, study after study now shows that African Americans are more likely than whites to be detained, to be arrested, to be taken to trial, to be wrongfully convicted, and receive harsher sentences. We need to rework our criminal justice system, from the very front end on what we make illegal all the way through the system, and how we help people come back into the community. But we cannot just say that criminal justice is the only time we want to talk about race specifically. We need to start having race-conscious laws. Housing, for example, I have a great housing plan to build more housing in America, but understand it was the policy of the United States of America to discriminate against African Americans and any other people of color for buying homes until 1965. You can‘t just repeal that and say ―Okay, now everything is even.‖ It‘s not. We need race-conscious laws in education and employment, in entrepreneurship, to make this country a country of opportunity for everyone, no matter the color of their skin. I‘m glad to stand on this stage with my fellow Democrats who talk about how P R important the black community is, at least at election time. Year after year after year, election after election after election, Democrats go to people in the black community and say ―Boy, we really care about these issues. Racism is terrible, we all want to do something,‖ and then somehow the problem just seems to keep getting worse. Well I think it‘s time we have real, concrete plans that are going to make a difference in people‘s lives. I proposed a two cent wealth tax. And let me tell you just one of the things we can do with a two cent wealth tax. We can cancel student loan debt for 43 million Americans, and because African Americans have to borrow more money to go to college, borrow more money while they‘re in college and have a harder time paying it back when they get out, that one law is going to help close the black-white Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 105
wealth gap for people with student loans by about 20 points. We aren‘t making a difference in America. We‘re saying to the rich folks ―You keep your money, and the rest of us will talk about racism but not really do anything.‖ I think the time for that is over, I‘m ready to get in this fight and really make a change. We‘ve been getting a lot of questions Look, I don‘t think anyone ought to be able to buy their way into a nomination or to N D from Apple News in tonight, be president of the United States. I don‘t think any billionaire ought to be able to do including many about a candidate it, and I don‘t think people who suck up to billionaires in order to fund their who‘s not on the stage tonight, but is campaigns out to do it. I heard everyone here talking about as Democrats, we all in this race, and that is former Mayor want to overturn Citizens United because we want to end this unlimited spending, Michael Bloomberg of New York. yeah. Except everyone on this stage except Amy and me is either a billionaire or is And this question came in from receiving help from PACs that can do unlimited spending. So if you really want to Nashville, Tennessee, says live where you say, then put your money where your mouth is and say no to the ―Billionaire Michael Bloomberg has PACs. Look, I think the way we build a democracy going forward is not billionaires entered the race and just got the reaching in their own pockets or people sucking up to billionaires. The way we build endorsement of a former Trump it going forward is we have a grassroots movement funded from the grassroots up. Navy Secretary. Why do you think That‘s the way I‘m running this campaign. If you think it‘s the right way to run a you are better positioned than campaign, to go elizabethwarren.com and pitch in $5, because understand this: our Bloomberg to beat Trump?‖ Senator democracy hangs in the balance. If we have to fund through billionaires, then we‘re Warren. just going to be an America that‘s going to work better and better for billionaires and not for anyone else. Senator Klobuchar, thank you. Yes I did, and I‘ll tell you why, because there are a lot of farmers around this P D,R Senator Warren, you voted yes as country that are really hurting because of Donald Trump‘s trade policies. There are a well. lot of workers who are hurting because they can‘t get enforcement of any workers‘ rights. So this NAFTA provision, after a lot of negotiation with Democrats, Senator Sherrod Brown helped make it a whole lot better. This makes things somewhat better for workers and for farmers and when I see a law that makes things somewhat better for hardworking people in this country, I‘m saying, I‘ll sign up for that and then I‘ll get up tomorrow morning and I‘ll start working hard for a better trade deal on climate, a better trade deal that has a basic coherence to it. Everyone wants to get to the American market. We should be raising standards on climate around the world to get access to our market. Cokie loved the New Hampshire So I started my grownup life as a special education teacher. I learned early on about N D,R primary, and she asked the the worth of every single human being, and I believe that the best investment we can candidates in this Republican debate, make as a nation, the best investment we can make as human beings, is to invest in how will we overcome the scandal of our children. We‘ve had enough of making rhetoric around this. Everyone says they one quarter of American preschoolers love the kids, but here‘s the deal. It‘s time to come up with real plans to make that living in poverty in the richest nation happen. I‘ve talked before about a two cent wealth tax, but the whole idea behind it on earth? Today, nearly one in five is we can do early childhood education and good quality child care, universal pre-K American preschoolers are still living for every three year old and four year old in America, and we can stop exploiting the below the poverty line, even though people, largely black and brown women who do this work and raise the wages of Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 106
we‘ve had 0 straight years of every childcare worker and preschool teacher in America. We want to have a real economic growth. What does that say future in this country, then invest in our children. Don‘t leave public education just to you about where America is today to our localities in our states. Be a good federal partner. Put real money into our and what we need to do about it? schools, put real money into housing, put real money into healthcare. Put real money into the future of our children. That‘s how we build the America of our best values. 19-Feb-20 So I'd like to talk about who we're running against, a billionaire who calls women N R "fat broads" and "horse-faced lesbians." And, no, I'm not talking about Donald Trump. I'm talking about Mayor Bloomberg. Democrats are not going to win if we have a nominee who has a history of hiding his tax returns, of harassing women, and of supporting racist polls like redlining and stop and frisk. Look, I'll support whoever the Democratic nominee is. But understand this: Democrats take a huge risk if we just substitute one arrogant billionaire for another. This country has worked for the rich for a long time and left everyone else in the dirt. It is time to have a president who will be on the side of working families and be willing to get out there and fight for them. That is why I am in this race, and that is how I will beat Donald Trump. Senator Warren, I have a question for Look, I have said many times before, we are all responsible for our supporters. And N D you. On Sunday, on "Meet the we need to step up. That's what leadership is all about. But the way we are going to Press," Vice President Biden accused lead this country and beat Donald Trump is going to be with a candidate who has Senator Sanders' supporters of rock-solid values and who actually gets something done. When Mayor Bloomberg bullying union leaders here with, was busy blaming African-Americans and Latinos for the housing crash of 2008, I quote, "vicious, malicious, was right here in Las Vegas, literally just a few blocks down the street, holding misogynistic things." You said hearings on the banks that were taking away homes from millions of families. That's Democrats cannot build an inclusive when I met Mr. Estrada, one of your neighbors. He came in to testify, and he said he party on a foundation of hate. Are thought he'd done everything right with Wells Fargo, but what had happened? They Senator Sanders and his supporters took away his house in a matter of weeks. This man stood there and cried while he making it harder for Democrats to talked about what it was like to tell his two little daughters that they might not be in unify in November? their elementary school, that they might be living out of their van. I spent the next years making sure that would never happen again. Wall Street fought us every inch of the way on a consumer agency. They lost, and I won. We need a candidate with unshakable values and a candidate who can actually get something done for working people. Senator Warren, you were all in on So I want to be clear. I've been to the Culinary Union's health care facilities. They're N D Medicare for all, and then you have terrific. You don't want to shut them down. You want to expand them. You want to since came up with a transition plan. see them all across Nevada and all across this country. But we need to get Is it because of the impact on unions? everybody's health care plan out here. Mayor Buttigieg really has a slogan that was thought up by his consultants to paper over a thin version of a plan that would leave millions of people unable to afford their health care. It's not a plan. It's a PowerPoint. And Amy's plan is even less. It's like a Post-It note, "Insert Plan Here." Bernie has started very much -- has a good start, but instead of expanding and bringing in more Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 107
people to help, instead, his campaign relentlessly attacks everyone who asks a question or tries to fill in details about how to actually make this work. And then his own advisors say, yeah, probably won't happen anyway. Look, health care is a crisis in this country. We need -- my approach to this is we need as much help for as many people as quickly as possible and bring in as many supporters as we can. And if we don't get it all the first time, take the win and come back into the fight to ask for more. So I actually took a look at the plans that are posted. Mayor Buttigieg, there are four N R, I expenses that families pay, right, premiums, deductibles, co-pays, and uncovered medical expenses. Mayor Buttigieg says he will put a cap only on the premiums. (Interrupt) And that means families are going to pick up the rest of the costs. Amy, I looked online at your plan. It's two paragraphs. Families are suffering, and they need...(Interrupt) You can't simply stand here and trash an idea to give health care coverage to everyone without having a realistic plan of your own. And if you're not going to own up to the fact either that you don't have a plan or that your plan is going to leave people without health care coverage, full coverage, then you need to say so. (Interrupt) I just want to say on this one, I was in Reno when I met a man who said he had diabetes. He gets his insulin through the V.A. But his sister and his daughter also have diabetes, no way to pay for their insulin. Three human beings right here in Nevada who are struggling. (Interrupt) They share one insulin prescription. That should not happen in America. I think this -- he called me. I do think that this really is about leadership and P R accountability. When the mayor says that he apologized, listen very closely to the apology. The language he used is about stop and frisk. It's about how it turned out. No, this isn't about how it turned out. This is about what it was designed to do to begin with. It targeted communities of color. It targeted black and brown men from the beginning. And if you want to issue a real apology, then the apology has to start with the intent of the plan as it was put together and the willful ignorance, day by day by day, of admitting what was happening even as people protested in your own street, shutting out the sounds of people telling you how your own policy was breaking their lives. You need a different apology here, Mr. Mayor. Yes, I have. And I hope you heard what his defense was. "I've been nice to some P R women." That just doesn't cut it. The mayor has to stand on his record. And what we need to know is exactly what's lurking out there. He has gotten some number of women, dozens, who knows, to sign nondisclosure agreements both for sexual harassment and for gender discrimination in the workplace. So, Mr. Mayor, are you willing to release all of those women from those nondisclosure agreements, so we can hear their side of the story? I'm sorry. No, the question is...(Interrupt) ... are the women bound by being muzzled N R, I by you and you could release them from that immediately? Because, understand, this Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 108
is not just a question of the mayor's character. This is also a question about electability. We are not going to beat Donald Trump with a man who has who knows how many nondisclosure agreements and the drip, drip, drip of stories of women saying they have been harassed and discriminated against. That's not what we do as Democrats. Can I just defend Senator Klobuchar for a minute? This is not right. I understand F R that she forgot a name. It happens. It happens to everybody on this stage. Look, you want to ask about whether or not you understand trade policy with Mexico? Have at it. And if you get it wrong, man, you ought to be held accountable for that. You want to ask about the economy and you get it wrong? You ought to be held accountable. You want to ask about a thousand different issues and you get it wrong? You ought to be held accountable. But let's just be clear. Missing a name all by itself does not indicate that you do not understand what's going on. And I just think this is unfair. Eighty-five percent of Nevada is So, look, I think we should stop all new drilling and mining on public lands and all P D, I managed by the federal government. offshore drilling. If we need to make exceptions because there are specific minerals You have said that you were going to that we've got to have access to, then we locate those and we do it not in a way that have an executive order that would just is about the profits of giant industries, but in a way that is sustainable for the stop drilling on public lands, stop environment. We cannot continue to let our public lands be used for profits by those mining, which is a huge industry who don't care about our environment and are not making it better. Look, I'm going here. You've got to have lithium, to say something that is really controversial in Washington, but I think I'm safe to you've got to have copper for say this here in Nevada. I believe in science. And I believe that the way that we're renewable energy. How do you do going to deal with this problem is that we are going to increase by tenfold our that? investment in science. There's an upcoming $27 trillion market worldwide for green. And much of what is needed has not yet been invented. My proposal is, let's invent it here in the United States and then say, we invent it in the U.S., you've got to build it in the U.S. (Interrupt) That's a million new manufacturing jobs. Senator Warren, address the worker Yes. We can have a Green New Deal and create jobs. We need people in N D,R, I issue, if you don't mind, as well. Can infrastructure who will help build. We have manufacturing… (interrupt) Yes, those you address the worker issue? jobs are for tomorrow. Those are the ones we need to be working on to harden our infrastructure right now. But listen to Senator Klobuchar's point. She says we have to think smaller in order to get it passed. I don't think that's the right approach here. Why can't we get anything passed in Washington on climate? Everyone understands the urgency, but we've got two problems. The first is corruption, an industry that makes its money felt all through Washington. The first thing I want to do in Washington is pass my anti-corruption bill so that we can start making the changes we need to make on climate. And the second is the filibuster. If you're not willing to roll back the filibuster, then you're giving the fossil fuel industry a veto overall of the work that we need to do. Yes, I want to make sure that the question of environmental justice gets more than a P R Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 109
glancing blow in this debate...... because for generations now in this country, toxic waste dumps, polluting factories have been located in or near communities of color, over and over and over. And the consequences are felt in the health of young African-American babies, it's felt in the health of seniors, people with compromised immune systems. It's also felt economically. Who wants to move into an area where the air smells bad or you can't drink the water? I have a commitment of a trillion dollars to repair the damage that this nation has permitted to inflict on communities of color for generations now. We have to own up to our responsibility. We cannot simply talk about climate change in big, global terms. We need to talk about it in terms of rescuing the communities that have been damaged. We have an entrepreneurship gap in America. And that is a gap between white P R, I entrepreneurs and black and Latino entrepreneurs. And the principal reason for this is they don't have the money for equity to get the businesses started. It's about a $7 billion gap. We want to have real entrepreneurship and a level playing field. I have a plan to put the $7 billion in to have the fund managed by the people...(Interrupt)... who are routinely cut out. So let me make a proposal that will work, that has not only support from a majority P R, I of Democrats, but also from a majority of the independents and a majority of Republicans. And that is a two-cent wealth tax on all fortunes above $50 million. You hit a billion, you've got to pay a few pennies more. This is a tax on the top one- tenth of one percent in America. And it permits us to start to restructure our economy. It means we can afford universal childcare for everybody baby in this country age zero to five. It means we can have universal pre-K for every child in America. It means we can raise the wages of every childcare worker and preschool teacher and stop exploiting the black and brown women who do this work. It means we can put $800 billion into our public schools, quadruple funding for Title I schools. And as a former special education teacher, we could fully fund IDEA so children with disabilities would get the full education they need. We can do college. We could put $50 billion into our historically black colleges and universities. And we could cancel student loan debt for 43 million Americans. (Interrupt)That's something a majority of Americans support, a two-cent wealth tax. It is a question of values. Do we want to invest in Mr. Bloomberg? Or do we want to invest in an entire generation of young students? Forty-five seconds. Senator Warren, Yes, because I am. Look, Democrats want to beat Donald Trump, but they are N D I'm just going to close it out here. worried. They are worried about gambling on a narrow vision that doesn't address You went out of your way -- you the fears of millions of Americans across this country who see real problems and went out of your way to call yourself want real change. They are worried about gambling on a revolution that won't bring a capitalist, to separate along a majority of this country. Amy and Joe's hearts are in the right place, but we yourself…(interrupt) ... from him. can't be so eager to be liked by Mitch McConnell that we forget how to fight the Why? Republicans. Mayor Buttigieg has been taking money from big donors and changing Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 110
his positions. So it makes it unclear what it is he stands for, other than his own... So, no, the point is different. Here's what happened. According to the New York N R, I Times," the last time that Mitch McConnell was on the ballot, the vice president stood in the Oval Office and said, "I hope that Mitch gets reelected so I can keep working with him." Well, Mitch did get -- Mitch did get re-elected. He did not have an epiphany. (Interrupt) Instead, he blocked nearly everything that Barack Obama tried to pass. (Interrupt) And he stole a Supreme Court seat from Democrats. (Interrupt) The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. But a convention working its will means that people have the delegates that are P R pledged to them and they keep those delegates until you come to the convention. (Interrupt) All of the people 25-Feb-20 So, look, the way I see this is that Bernie is winning right now because the N R, i Democratic Party is a progressive party, and progressive ideas are popular ideas, even if there are a lot of people on this stage who don't want to say so. You know, but Bernie and I agree on a lot of things, but I think I would make a better president than Bernie. And the reason for that is that getting a progressive agenda enacted is going to be really hard, and it's going to take someone who digs into the details to make it happen. Bernie and I both wanted to help rein in Wall Street. In 2008, we both got our chance. But I dug in. I fought the big banks. I built the coalitions, and I won. Bernie and I both want to see universal health care, but Bernie's plan doesn't explain how to get there, doesn't show how we're going to get enough allies into it, and doesn't show enough about how we're going to pay for it.(Interrupt) I dug in. I did the work. And then Bernie's team trashed me for it. Senator Warren, I'm coming to you. I I mean that Mayor Bloomberg -- let's think of it this way. We're here in Charleston, F D want to direct this question to you and you know who is going to be in Charleston later this week is Donald Trump. because you -- because Mayor He's going to be here to raise money for his buddy Senator Lindsey Graham, who Bloomberg has said he got in this funded Lindsey Graham's campaign for re-election last time? It was Mayor race late because he doesn't believe Bloomberg. And that's not the only right-wing senator that Mayor Bloomberg has that any of you on stage can beat funded. In 2016, he dumped $12 million into the Pennsylvania Senate race to help Donald Trump. You said Mayor re-elect an anti-choice, right-wing Republican senator. And I just want to say, the Bloomberg is not the safest woman challenger was terrific. She lost by a single point. In 2012, he scooped in to candidate, he is the riskiest try to defend another Republican senator against a woman challenger. That was me. candidate. What did you mean by It didn't work, but he tried hard. I don't care how much money Mayor Bloomberg that? has. The core of the Democratic Party will never trust him. He has not earned their trust. I will. And the fact that he cannot earn the trust of core of the Democratic Party means he is the riskiest candidate standing on this stage. I'd like to respond. (Interrupt)He called me out by name... (Interrupt)... and referred N R,I to what I talk about as a "sideshow." You know, this is personal for me. When I was 21 years old, I got my first job as a special education teacher. I loved that job. And by the end of the first year, I was visibly pregnant. The principal wished me luck and Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 111
gave my job to someone else. Pregnancy discrimination, you bet. But I was 21 years old. I didn't have a union to protect me. And I didn't have any federal law on my side. So I packed up my stuff, and I went home. At least I didn't have a boss who said to me, "Kill it," the way that Mayor Bloomberg is alleged to have said...(Interrupt)... to one of his pregnant employees. People want a chance to hear...People want a chance to hear from the women who have worked for... Then let us -- let us have -- the women have an opportunity to speak. The N R Bloomberg corporations and Mayor Bloomberg himself have been accused of discrimination. They are bound by nondisclosures so that they cannot speak. If he says there is nothing to hide here, then sign a blanket release and let those women speak out...... so that they can tell their stories the way I can tell my story without having the fear they're going to be sued by a billionaire. That is the problem. And that is that a progressive agenda is popular, Mayor P R, I Bloomberg. And, for everyone on this stage, we talk about how to build a future. That's what matters. I talk to people in selfie lines every day who tell me about the importance of getting real help on health care. It's why I also have a way to pay for health care that doesn't raise taxes on middle-class families. But it's so much more than that. As Democrats, we need to speak to the future we can build together. We need to speak of the prosperity we can build together. How about a wealth tax in America? Because with a 2-cent tax on just the top one-tenth of 1 percent, we have a chance to invest in universal childcare for every one of our babies, to really level the playing field. (Interrupt)Put $50 billion into historically black colleges and universities. (Interrupt)And start closing the racial wealth gap by canceling student loan debt for 43 million Americans. (Interrupt)We need to talk about our aspirations, our hopes. This is a moment... (Interrupt)... to choose hope over fear. (Interrupt)This is our moment. So this is about being able to dig in and talk about what really it's going to take to N R, I get something done. I've been in the Senate. What I've seen is gun safety legislation introduced, get a majority, and then doesn't pass because of the filibuster. Understand this, the filibuster is giving a veto to the gun industry. It gives a veto to the oil industry. It's going to give a veto on immigration. Until we're willing to dig in and say that if Mitch McConnell is going to do to the next Democratic president what he did to President Obama, and that is try to block every single thing he does, that we are willing to roll back the filibuster, go with the majority vote, and do what needs to be done for the American people.(Interrupt)Understand this, many people on this stage do not support rolling back the filibuster. Until we're ready to do that, we can't have real change. So this is one thing where a president can make a big difference all by herself. And P R, I I'm going to start with my secretary of education. My secretary of education will be someone who has taught in public school. My secretary of education will be Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 112
someone who believes in public education. And my secretary of education will believe that public dollars should stay in public schools. One more thing. My secretary of education will believe that it is time to get rid of high-stakes testing. We need to support our children. But, look, we want to build a future in this country? We build a future by investing in our children. I've got a plan to put $800 billion new federal dollars into our public schools. (Interrupt)Education is not free. We must invest in the future of our children. This is a point...This is a point where we need to talk about race, though. P R, I (Interrupt)It is not enough to talk about housing neutrally... (Interrupt)... and just be race blind. It is important to recognize the role that the federal government played for decades and decades in discriminating against African-Americans having an opportunity to buy homes. That's red lining. (Interrupt)And while Mayor Bloomberg was blaming the housing crash of 2008 on African Americans and on Latinos, in fact, I was out there fighting for a consumer agency to make sure people never get cheated again on their mortgages. We have a -- I have a housing plan, and what it has in it specifically... (Interrupt)... is a piece... (Interrupt)... to deal with the effects of red-lining. We can no longer pretend that everything is race-neutral. We have got to address race consciously, what's happening in this country. You said, Senator Warren, you said I do. (Interrupt)Look, a president's job, first job, is to keep America safe, and an P D, I you wanted to bring home all troops important part of that is to have a strong military. All three of my brothers served in from the Middle East and then you the military, and I understand how much the military sacrifices, how much their walked that back to say you want to families sacrifice, and how much they are willing to put on the line. That means that bring home combat we have a sacred responsibility to them, and that is not to use our military to solve troops.(Interrupt)How does that problems that cannot be solved militarily. We are not winning in Afghanistan. We protect America's national security? are not winning in the Middle East. What we need to do is we need to use all of the tools in our toolbox. We need a strong military. We also need a strong State Department. Those are our eyes and ears on the ground. They are our frontlines in diplomacy. We need a strong economy and to work worldwide on that economy, and we need strong alliances. We need to know the difference between our friends and between dictators who would do us harm. And we need to be nicer to our friends than to dictators. We need not to cut and run on our allies. And we need to be nicer to our friends than to dictators. We need not to cut and run on our allies. We need an approach that keeps us safe by using all of the tools in a measured way. Senator Warren, same question. We -- we have to be able to trust our president, because there are a lot of decisions a P D, I Would you allow Chinese firms to president makes that you just can't follow every part of that. And that's one of the build infrastructure? (Interrupt) Was reasons that we need to see any candidate's taxes. We know that Mayor Bloomberg that a yes or no? has been doing business with China for a long time, and he is the only one on this stage who has not released his taxes. He plans to release them after Super Tuesday. It is not enough to be able to say, just trust me on this. We have a president who said he was going to release his taxes after the election and has refused to do this. Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 113
(Interrupt) No, I would not. Look, the way we have to think about this is I think we have to start with the values F R and what has to be protected here. Israelis have a right to security and the Palestinians have a right to be treated with dignity and to have self-determination. That is a two-state solution. But it's not up to us to determine what the terms of a two-state solution are. We want to be a good ally to everyone in the region. The best way to do that is to encourage the parties to get to the negotiating table themselves. Donald Trump's big mistake is he keeps putting a thumb on the scale on just one side, and that moves the parties further away from working out their own solution here. We need to be an ally by supporting them to come to negotiate to find a lasting peace. But, Senator Warren, just on the It is not ours to do. (Interrupt)It is not ours to do. We should let the parties determine N D, I question of the embassy, what was the capital. (Interrupt) We should let the parties determine the capitals themselves. your position on that? (Interrupt) Would you move it back? (Interrupt)Would you move it back or not, yes or no? Senator Warren, would you like to Look, I think that what we've got to do is we have to provide humanitarian relief. F D respond? What would do -- what We need to work with our allies on this. But this is not a moment for military would Senator Warren do to stop the intervention. We have got to use our military only when we see a military problem mass murder? (Interrupt)What would that can be solved militarily. We cannot send our military in unless we have a plan -- same question. What would you do to get them out. So, for me, this is about working with our allies. It is about standing to stop the mass murder in Idlib, with the people who are under enormous pressure right now. This is recognizing Syria? what Donald Trump has put us in, in a terrible box around the world. But the solution is not to use our military. The solution is to use the other tools here. First, I'd like you each to tell us your Well, I suppose one misconception is that I don't eat very much. In fact, I eat all the F D -- the biggest misconception about time. Because I get teased about this. Look, I never was supposed to be on a stage you. That's number one. Number like this. And the misconception is that I thought I should be president of the United two, the South Carolina motto is this. States? No. I got into this because I am a fighter. My motto ties in directly to this. "While I breathe, I hope." So outside It's Mathew 25, and that is, "Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of these, the least of politics, in no more than 45 of thy brethren, ye have done it unto me." For me this is about how we treat other seconds or so, what is your personal people and how we lift them up. That is why I am in this fight. That is why I am motto, your personal belief, your running to be president, and it is why I will be an effective president. favorite quote that represents you?
Extra Information for Warren Database: cell numbers match
Original question posited to a different candidate Original addressee Network Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 114
CNN
But now he's talking about a different issue. What I'm talking about is really simple. We should deal with Delaney MSNBC the tragedy of the (ph) uninsured and give everyone health care as a right. But why do we got to be the party of taking something away from people?***
Klobuchar: That is incorrect. I just have a better way to do this. And in one of my first debates, Jake, I was Sanders, Klobuchar called a street fighter from the iron range by my opponent. And when she said it, I said thank you. So this is what I think we need to get done. We need the public option. That's what Barack Obama wanted, and it would bring health care costs down for everyone. And by the way, I just don't buy this. I've heard some of these candidates say that it's somehow not moral if you -- not moral to not have that public option. Well, Senator Sanders was actually on a public option bill last year, and that was, Bernie, the Medicaid public option bill that Senator Schatz introduced. Clearly, this is the easiest way to move forward quickly, and I want to get things done. People can't wait. I've got my friend, Nicole, out there whose son was actually died trying to ration his insulin as a restaurant manager. And he died because he didn't have enough money to pay for it. And Bernie and I have worked on pharmaceutical issues together. We can get less expensive drugs. Sanders: As the author -- as the author of the Medicare bill, let me clear up one thing. As people talk about having insurance, there are millions of people who have insurance, they can't go to the doctor, and when they come out of the hospital, they go bankrupt. All right? What I am talking about and others up here are talking about is no deductibles and no co-payments. And, Jake, your question is a Republican talking point. At the end of the day... And by the way -- and by the way -- by the way -- the health care industry will be advertising tonight on this program. Well, obviously, I disagree with that as much as I respect both of the senators to my right. You know, it Hickenlooper comes down to that question of Americans being used to being able to make choices, to have the right to make a decision. And I think proposing a public option that allows some form of Medicare that maybe is a combination of Medicare Advantage and Medicare, but people choose it, and if enough people choose it, it expands, the quality improves, the cost comes down, more people choose it, eventually, in 15 years, you could get there, but it would be an evolution, not a revolution. Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 115
Governor Bullock, about two-thirds of Democratic voters and many of your rivals here for the nomination, Bullock support giving health insurance to undocumented immigrants. You haven't gone that far. Why not? Bullock: Look, I think this is the part of the discussion that shows how often these debates are detached from people's lives. We've got 100,000 people showing up at the border right now. If we decriminalize entry, if we give health care to everyone, we'll have multiples of that. Don't take my word, that was President Obama's Homeland Security secretary that said that. The biggest problem right now that we have with immigration, it's Donald Trump. He's using immigration to not only rip apart families, but rip apart this country. We can actually get to the point where we have safe borders, where we have a path to citizenship, where we have opportunities for Dreamers. And you don't have to decriminalize everything. What you have to do is have a president in there with the judgment and the decency to treat someone that comes to the border like one of our own. But you are playing into Donald Trump's hands. The challenge isn't that it's a criminal offense to cross the Bullock border. The challenge is that Donald Trump is president, and using this to rip families apart. A sane immigration system needs a sane leader. And we can do that without decriminalizing and providing health care for everyone. And it's not me saying that, that's Obama's Homeland Security secretary... (Interrupt) ... that said you'll cause further problems at the border, not making it better. ABC
OK, number one, my health care plan does significantly cut the costs of -- the largest out-of-pocket Biden payment you'll pay is $1,000. You'll be able to get into a -- anyone who can't afford it gets automatically enrolled in the Medicare-type option we have, et cetera. But guess what? Of the 160 million people who like their health care now, they can keep it. If they don't like it, they can leave. Number one. Number two, the fact of the matter is, we're in a situation where, if you notice, he hasn't answered the question. This is about candor, honesty, big ideas. Let's have a big idea. The tax of 2 percent that the senator is talking about, that raises about $3 billion. Guess what? That leaves you $28 billion short. The senator said before, it's going to cost you in your pay -- there will be a deductible, in your paycheck. You're going to -- the middle class person, someone making 60 grand with three kids, they're going to end up paying $5,000 more. They're going to end up paying 4 percent more on their income tax. That's a reality. Now, it's not a bad idea if you like it. I don't like it. Senator Warren, page eight of the bill, she says, 149 people will lose their health insurance. Klobuchar/Biden STEPHANOPOULOS: She said, page eight of the bill, 149 million people will lose their health insurance. KLOBUCHAR: Current health insurance. BIDEN: One hundred forty-nine million. STEPHANOPOULOS: Million, excuse me.
Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 116
CNN
Well, we heard it tonight, a yes or no question that didn't get a yes or no answer. Look, this is why people Buttigieg here in the Midwest are so frustrated with Washington in general and Capitol Hill in particular. Your signature, Senator, is to have a plan for everything. Except this. No plan has been laid out to explain how a multi-trillion-dollar hole in this Medicare for all plan that Senator Warren is putting forward is supposed to get filled in. And the thing is, we really can deliver health care for every American and move forward with the boldest, biggest transformation since the inception of Medicare itself. But the way to do it without a giant multi-trillion-dollar hole and without having to avoid a yes-or-no question is Medicare for all who want it. We take a version of Medicare. We let you access it if you want to. And if you prefer to stay on your private plan, you can do that, too. That is what most Americans want, Medicare for all who want it, trusting you to make the right decision for your health care and for your family. And it can be delivered without an increase on the middle-class taxes.
At least Bernie's being honest here and saying how he's going to pay for this and that taxes are going to go ? up. And I'm sorry, Elizabeth, but you have not said that, and I think we owe it to the American people to tell them where we're going to send the invoice. I believe the best and boldest idea here is to not trash Obamacare but to do exactly what Barack Obama wanted to do from the beginning and that‘s have a public option that would bring down the cost of the premium and expand the number of people covered and take on the pharmaceutical companies. That is what we should be doing instead of kicking 149 million people off their insurance in our years. And I‘m tired of hearing, whenever I say these things, oh, it‘s Republican talking points. You are making Republican talking points right now in this room by coming out for a plan that‘s going to do that. I think there is a better way that is bold, that will cover more people, and it‘s the one we should get behind.
Senator Warren, I've been talking to Americans around the country about automation. And they're smart. Yang They see what's happening around them. Their Main Street stores are closing. They see a self- serve kiosk in every McDonalds, every grocery store, every CVS. Driving a truck is the most common job in 29 states, including this one; 3.5 million truck drivers in this country. And my friends in California are piloting self- Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 117
driving trucks. What is that going to mean for the 3.5 million truckers or the 7 million Americans who work in truck stops, motels, and diners that rely upon the truckers getting out and having a meal? Saying this is a rules problem is ignoring the reality that Americans see around us every single day.
No, look, demonizing wealth -- what I talked about is how you get things done. And the way to get things Biden done is take a look at the tax code right now. The idea -- we have to start rewarding work, not just wealth. I would eliminate the capital gains tax -- I would raise the capital gains tax to the highest rate, of 39.5 percent. I would double it, because guess what? Why in God's name should someone who's clipping coupons in the stock market make -- in fact, pay a lower tax rate than someone who, in fact, is -- like I said -- the -- a schoolteacher and a firefighter? It's ridiculous. And they pay a lower tax. Secondly, the idea that we, in fact, engage in this notion that there are -- there's $1,640,000,000,000 in tax loopholes. You can't justify a minimum $600 billion of that. We could eliminate it all. I could go into detail had I the time. Secondly -- I mean, thirdly, what we need to do is we need to go out and make it clear to the American people that we are going to -- we are going to raise taxes on the wealthy. We're going to reduce tax burdens on those who are not. And this is one of the reasons why these debates are kind of crazy, because everybody tries to squeeze everything into every answer that is given. The fact is, everybody's right about the fact that the fourth industrial revolution is costing jobs. It is. The fact is also corporate greed is th33ey're going back and not investing in our employees, they're reinvesting and buying back their stock. It could work. I am open to it. But I want to give a reality check here to Elizabeth, because no one on this Klobuchar stage wants to protect billionaires. Not even the billionaire wants to protect billionaires. We just have different approaches. Your idea is not the only idea. And when I look at this, I think about Donald Trump, the guy that after that tax bill passed went to Mar-a-Lago, got together with his cronies, and said, guess what, you guys all got a lot richer. That was the one time in his presidency he told the truth. So we have different ways -- I would repeal significant portions of that tax bill that help the rich, including what he did with the corporate tax rate, including what he did on international taxation. You add it all up, you got a lot of money that, one, helps pay for that childcare, protects that dignity of work, makes sure we have decent retirement, and makes sure that our kids can go to good schools. I think it's part of the solution. But I think we need to be focused on lifting people up. And sometimes I O'Rourke think that Senator Warren is more focused on being punitive and pitting some part of the country against the other instead of lifting people up and making sure that this country comes together around those solutions. I think of a woman that I met in Las Vegas, Nevada. She's working four jobs, raising her child with disabilities, and any American with disabilities knows just how hard it is to make it and get by in this country already. Some of those jobs working for some of these corporations, she wants to know how we are going to help her, how we're going to make sure that her child has the care that she needs, that we strengthen protections for those with disabilities, that she just has to work one job because it pays a living wage. And Senator Warren said show me your budget, show me your tax plan, and you'll show me your values. She has yet to describe her tax plan and whether or not that person I met would see a tax increase. Under my administration, if you make less than $250,000 a year as a family, you will not see a tax increase. That family needs to know that. Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 118
Well, first of all, we've got to understand the reality of the situation there, which is that the slaughter of the Gabbard Kurds being done by Turkey is yet another negative consequence of the regime change war that we've been waging in Syria. Donald Trump has the blood of the Kurds on his hand, but so do many of the politicians in our country from both parties who have supported this ongoing regime change war in Syria that started in 2011, along with many in the mainstream media, who have been championing and cheerleading this regime change war. Not only that, but the New York Times and CNN have also smeared veterans like myself for calling for an end to this regime change war. Just two days ago, the New York Times put out an article saying that I'm a Russian asset and an Assad apologist and all these different smears. This morning, a CNN commentator said on national television that I'm an asset of Russia. Completely despicable. As president, I will end these regime change wars by doing two things -- ending the draconian sanctions that are really a modern-day siege the likes of which we are seeing Saudi Arabia wage against Yemen, that have caused tens of thousands of Syrian civilians to die and to starve, and I would make sure that we stop supporting terrorists like Al Qaida in Syria who have been the ground force in this ongoing regime change war.
As usual, Senator Warren is 100 percent right in diagnosing the problem. There are absolutely excesses in Yang technology and in some cases having them divest parts of their business is the right move. But we also have to be realistic that competition doesn't solve all the problems. It's not like any of us wants to use the fourth best navigation app. That would be like cruel and unusual punishment. There is a reason why no one is using Bing today. Sorry, Microsoft. It's true. So it's not like breaking up these big tech companies will revive Main Street businesses around the country. And as the parent of two young children, I'm particularly concerned about screen use and its effect on our children. Studies clearly show that we're seeing record levels of anxiety and depression coincident with smartphone adoption and social media use. Breaking up the tech companies does nothing to make our kids healthier. What we have to do is we have to hone in on the specific problems we're trying to solve and use 21st century solutions for 21st century problems. Using a 20th century antitrust framework will not work. We need new solutions and a new toolkit. No, I don't agree with that at all. And serving on the Senate Intelligence Committee, working with Amy Harris Klobuchar on what we need to do to upgrade the elections infrastructure, knowing that Russia needs to be held accountable for the fact that they interfered in the election of the president of the United States and will attempt to do it again, that's -- that's a ridiculous argument he's making. But I do want to also say this. What we're talking about is a grave injustice, when rules apply to some but not equally to all, and in particular when the rules that apply to the powerless don't apply to the powerful. And so, Senator Warren, I just want to say that I was surprised to hear that you did not agree with me that on this subject of what should be the rules around corporate responsibility for these big tech companies, when I called on Twitter to suspend Donald Trump's account, that you did not agree, and I would urge you to join me. Because here we have Donald Trump, who has 65 million Twitter followers and is using that platform as the president of the United States to openly intimidate witnesses, to threaten witnesses, to obstruct justice, and he and his Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 119
account should be taken down. We saw in El Paso that that shooter in his manifesto was informed by how Donald Trump uses that platform, and this is a matter of corporate responsibility. Twitter should be held accountable and shut down that site. It is a matter of safety and corporate accountability. I'm not finished. I'm not finished. And so what I am saying is that it seems to me that you would be able to Harris join me in saying the rule has to apply to Twitter the same way it does to Facebook.
Joe, you talked about working with Republicans and getting things done. But you know what you also got Sanders done? And I say this as a good friend. You got the disastrous war in Iraq done. You got a bankruptcy bill, which is hurting middle-class families all over this country. You got trade agreements, like NAFTA and PNTR, with China done, which have cost us 4 million jobs. Now, let's get to Medicare for all. Let's be honest. We spend twice as much per person as do the people of any other major country on Earth. And the answer is, if we have the guts that I would like to see the Democratic Party have that guts, to stand up to the drug companies and the insurance companies and tell them that the function of health care is to guarantee care to all people, not to make $100 billion in profit. I agree. Let me -- she referenced me. I agreed with the great job she did, and I went on the floor and got Biden you votes. I got votes for that bill. I convinced people to vote for it. So let's get those things straight, too. Thank you. You know, this isn't a flyover part of the country to me. The heartland is where I live. And I ? want to win those states that we lost last time, and I have bold ideas to get us there. And I think just because they're different than Elizabeth's doesn't mean they're bold. But we can't get any of this done on climate change or immigration reform unless they win. And what I have done is win and the only one up here, time and time again, the reddest of red districts, Michele Bachmann's, I -- I won that district three times, rural districts that border Iowa and North and South Dakota. And I do it by going not just where it's comfortable but where it's uncomfortable. And that is why I have been in Pennsylvania and in Michigan and in Wisconsin and all over Ohio and in Iowa, because I think we need to build a blue Democratic wall around those states and make Donald Trump pay for it.
MSNBC/Washington Post
Well, first of all, I think we all agree that we need to bring in a lot more revenue in this country. We Booker actually have a real problem with the tax rates, tax loopholes, tax cheats. And I don't agree with the wealth tax, the way that Elizabeth Warren puts it, but I agree that we need to raise the estate tax. We need to tax capital gains as ordinary income. Real strategies will increase revenue. But here's the challenge. We as Democrats need to fight for a just taxation system. But as I travel around the country, we Democrats also have to talk about how to grow wealth, as well. When I stood in church recently and asked folks in a black church how many people here want to be entrepreneurs, half the church raised their hands. If we as a country don't start -- if we as a party don't start talking not just about how to tax wealth, but how to give more people opportunities to create wealth, to grow businesses, to have their American dream -- because, Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 120
yeah, we need to raise the minimum wage to a living wage, $15 an hour. But the people in communities I frequent, they're not -- aspiration for their lives is not just to have those fair wages. They want to have an economy that provides not just equalities in wealth, but they want to have equalities in opportunity. And that's what our party has to be about, as well. We need to give more new entrepreneurs access to wealth. Booker
When you look at inequality in the United States of America, you have to start with housing. Where you Steyer put your head at night determines so many things about your life. It determines where your kids go to school. It determines the air you breathe, where you shop, how long it takes you to get to work. What we've seen in California is, as a result of policy, we have millions too few housing units. And that affects everybody in California. It starts with a homeless crisis that goes all through the state, but it also includes skyrocketing rents which affect every single working person in the state of California. I understand exactly what needs to be done here, which is we need to change policy and we need to apply resources here to make sure that we build literally millions of new units. But the other thing that's going to be true about building these units is, we're going to have to build them in a way that's sustainable, that, in fact, how we build units, where people live has a dramatic impact on climate and on sustainability. So we are going to have to direct dollars, we're going to have to change policy and make sure that the localities and municipalities who have worked very hard to make sure that there are no new housing units built in their towns, that they have to change that and we're going to have force it, and then we're going to have to direct federal dollars to make sure that those units are affordable so that working people can live in places and not be spending 50 percent of their income on rent.
PBS/Washington Post GDP and corporate profits are at record highs in America today. Also at record highs? Depression, ? financial insecurity, student loan debt. Even suicides and drug overdoses. It has gotten so bad that our life expectancy as a country has declined for the last three years because suicides and drug overdoses have overtaken vehicle deaths for the first time in American history. The fact is, this unemployment rate and GDP have very little relationship with people's lived experience on the ground. If you're a recent college graduate, you have a 40 percent chance of doing a job that doesn't require a college degree. That doesn't show up in the headline unemployment rate, nor does all of the families that are working two or three jobs to get by.
Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 121
Former President Obama said this week when asked who should be running countries that if women were Biden, Sanders, in charge, you'd see a significant improvement on just about everything. He also said, quote, "If you look Klobuchar at the world and look at the problems, it's usually old people, usually old men, not getting out of the way." Senator Sanders, you are the oldest candidate on stage this evening. Well, can't help but feel that might have been directed at me. And here is the thing. We're in the fight of Buttigieg our lives right now. Donald Trump and his allies have made it abundantly clear that they will stop at nothing, not even foreign interference to hold onto power. They've already put together more than $300 million. This is our chance. This is our only chance to defeat Donald Trump. And we shouldn't try to do it with one hand tied behind our back. The way we're going to win is to bring everybody to our side in this fight. If that means that you're a grad student digging deep to go online to peteforamerica.com and chip in $10 bucks, that's great. And if you can drop $1,000 without blinking, that's great, too. We need everybody's help in this fight. I'm not going to turn away anyone who wants to help us defeat Donald Trump. We need Democrats who've been with us all along, yes, but we also need independents worried about the direction of the country. If you're a Republican disgusted with what's going on in your own party, we're not going to agree on everything, but we need you in this fight, and I will welcome you to our side. You know, according to Forbes magazine, I am literally the only person on this stage who is not a Buttigieg millionaire or a billionaire. So if -- this is important. This is the problem with issuing purity tests you cannot yourself pass. If I pledge -- if I pledge never to be in the company of a progressive Democratic donor, I couldn't be up here. Senator, your net worth is 100 times mine. Now, supposing that you went home feeling the holiday spirit -- I know this isn't likely, but stay with me -- and decided to go onto peteforamerica.com and gave the maximum allowable by law, $2,800, would that pollute my campaign because it came from a wealthy person? No, I would be glad to have that support. We need the support from everybody who is committed to helping us defeat Donald Trump. I do think that if you're in that lucky top 10 percent -- I still wish you well, don't get me wrong. I just want Buttigieg you to go ahead and pay your own tuition. Now, we can still have public service loan forgiveness for those who go into lower income fields to deal with that. But if you're in that top 10 percent, I think you're going to be for the most part OK. And there is a very real choice on where every one of these tax dollars goes. So I very much agree with Senator Warren on raising more tax revenue from millionaires and billionaires. I just don't agree on the part about spending it on millionaires and billionaires when it comes to their college tuition.
I would love it. I have a son with special needs. And to me, special needs is the new normal in this country. Yang How many of you all have a family member or a friend or a neighbor with special needs or autism? As you look around, most hands went up. The fact is right now, we have to do more for Kyle. Special needs children are going to become special needs adults in many cases. And here's the challenge. We go to employers and say, hey, this special needs person can be a contributor in your workplace, which may be correct, but that's not the point. We have to stop confusing economic value and human value. We have to be able to say to our kids and Kyle that you have intrinsic value because you're an American and you're a Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 122
human being. We're going to put a freedom dividend of $1,000 a month in everyone's hands, which is going to help families around the country adapt. And then we're going to take this burden off of the communities and off of the schools who do not have the resources to support kids like my son and make it a federal priority, not a local one, so we're not robbing Peter to pay Paul. We need moral leadership in the White House. We need a president who will do everything humanly Sanders possible to end all forms of discrimination against the transgender community, against the African- American community, against the Latino community, and against all minorities in this country. But above and beyond providing the moral leadership of trying to bring our people together, what we also need for the transgender community is to make sure that health care is available to every person in this country, regardless of their sexual orientation or their needs. And that is why I strongly support and have helped lead the effort for a Medicare for all single-payer program, which will provide comprehensive health care to all people, including certainly the transgender community.
CNN
We need corporate responsibility and I agree with that completely. But we also need to have enforcement Biden mechanisms in the agreements we make. Enforceable agreements. That's one of the things that has been improved with the trade agreement with Mexico. And that's what we should be doing in any agreement we have. But let's get back to the basics here. If we don't set the rules of the road by going out to our partners, instead of poking our eye -- excuse me, poking our finger in the eye of all of our friends and allies, we make up 25 percent of the world's economy. We've got to bring the other 25 percent of our allies along with us to set the rules of the road so China cannot continue to abuse their power by stealing our intellectual property and doing all the other things, using their corporate state system to our significant disadvantage.
Well, 30 years ago is 1990, as a matter of fact. But I don't know that that's the major issue of the day. I Sanders think what the major issue of the day is -- let's -- does anybody in their right mind think that a woman cannot be elected president? That's -- nobody believes that. Of -- Hillary Clinton got 3 million votes, more votes than Trump. So who believes that a woman can't win? Of course, a woman can win. But the real question is, how do we beat Trump? And the only way we beat Trump is by a campaign of energy and excitement and a campaign that has, by far, the largest voter turnout in the history of this country. And I believe that our campaign has the strongest grassroots movement... (Interrupt) We have been endorsed by many grassroots organizations... (Interrupt) That's why... You have numerous governors that are Democratic that don't support this. You have numerous House Klobuchar CNN members that put Nancy Pelosi in as speaker. The answer is a nonprofit public option. The answer is -- the Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 123
real debate we should be having is how do we make it easier for people to get coverage for addiction and mental health. I have a plan for that. And then, finally, what should we do about long-term care? The elephant that doesn't even fit in this room. We need to make it easier for people to get long-term care insurance. We need to make it easier for them to pay for their premiums. My own dad, I know when his long-term care insurance ends, and then we have some savings for him. He's in assisted living. He got married three times -- whole other story -- so there isn't much there. But then we go to Medicaid, and I've already talked to Catholic Elder Care. Well, it's making sure that there is no such thing as an uninsured American. Look, the individual mandate Buttigieg was an important part of the ACA because the system doesn't work if there are free riders. What I'm offering is a choice. You don't have to be in my plan if there's another plan that you would rather keep. And there's no need to kick Americans off the plans that they want in order to deliver health care for all. And my plan is paid for. Look, our party should no longer hesitate to talk about the issue of the debt and the deficit. Now, we've got a dramatically better track record on it than Republicans do. In my lifetime, it's almost invariably Republican presidents who have added to the deficit, a trillion dollars under this president. And it's why everything I've put forward -- from Medicare for all who want it to the historic investments we're going to make in infrastructure to dealing with climate change -- is fully paid for. When it comes to health care, you can do it in two moves. Of course, my plan costs $1.5 trillion over a decade. No small sum. But not the $20 trillion, $30 trillion, $40 trillion that we're hearing about from the others. All you've got to do is two things, both of them are commonsense. Allow Medicare to negotiate prescription drug prices and roll back the Trump corporate tax cuts that went to corporations and the wealthy that didn't even need it. It's just not true that the plan I'm proposing is small. We've got to move past a Washington mentality that Buttigieg suggests that the bigness of plans only consists of how many trillions of dollars they put through the Treasury, that the boldness of a plan only consists of how many Americans it can alienate. This would be a game-changer. This would be the biggest thing we've done to American health care in a half-century. Let's measure the effects of our plans based on what they would do in our everyday lives. And, yes, we're taking on cost. On prescription drugs, we'll have an out-of-pocket cap, even if you don't get the subsidies that would make it free, a $250 monthly cap. And here's why it's got to be monthly. You ever been in that situation or known somebody who finds that they've got to defer a procedure or delay filling a prescription to try to have it happen in the right month because of when your out-of- pocket cap hits? It makes no sense medically because most of us don't experience the economy on an annual basis. Our bills don't come in every year. They come in every month. Same with our paychecks, biweekly or monthly.
Well, it's simple. We expect and hope for everyone to get through 12th grade. It's not the same for college. Buttigieg Now, again, I don't want cost ever to be a barrier to somebody seeking to attend college. And under my plan, it won't be. As a matter of fact, for the first 80 percent of Americans by income, it is free at public colleges. But if you're in that top income bracket, don't get me wrong, I still wish you well. I hope you succeed when you go to college. I just need you to go ahead and pay that tuition, because we could be Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 124
using those dollars for something else. There is a very real choice about what we do with every single taxpayer dollar that we raise, and we need to be using that to support everybody, whether you go to college or not, making sure that Americans can thrive, investing in infrastructure, and something that hasn't come up very much tonight but deserves a lot of attention, poverty. You know, the Poor People's Campaign is marching on Iowa right now calling on us to talk about this issue more. They are driven by their faith. I think because even though in politics we're supposed to talk middle class, they know there's no scripture that says as you've done unto the middle class, so you've done unto me. We've got to be making sure that we target our tax dollars where they will make the biggest difference. And I don't think subsidizing the children of millionaires and billionaires to pay absolutely zero in tuition at public colleges is the best use of those scarce taxpayer dollars.
ABC/From blog I keep listening to this same debate, and it is not real. It is not real, Bernie, because two thirds of the Klobuchar Democrats in the Senate are not on your bill and because it would kick 149 million Americans off their current health insurance in four years. And let me say what else, Elizabeth wants to do it in two years. And Pete, while you have a different plan now you sent out a tweet just a few years ago that said, henceforth, fore with, indubitably, affirmatively, you are for Medicare for All for the ages. And so I would like to point out that what leadership is about is taking a position, looking at things and sticking with them. I have long believed that the way that we expand healthcare to more people and bring down premiums is by building on the Affordable Care Act, with a nonprofit public option. That is the best way to do it. And practically look at this, the Affordable Care Act is now nearly 10 points more popular than the President of United States. So why would we talk about blowing it up? What we need to do is build on it. Mental health care, addiction, long-term care, those are the things that would make it better for everyone.
(Biden) Yes. Look, here‘s the deal. Litmus test on abortion relates to the fundamental value of the Biden Constitution. A woman does have a right to choose. I would in fact, if they rule it to be unconstitutional, I will send to the United States Congress and it will pass, I believe, a bill that… Excuse me, legislates Roe V. Wade adjusted by Casey. It‘s a woman‘s right to do that. Period. And if you call that a litmus test it‘s a litmus test, but what I was talking about in the past, so no one gets confused here, is if there is no… If you read the Constitution very, very narrowly and say there are no unenumerated rights. If the doesn‘t say it in the Constitution that doesn‘t exist, you cannot have any of the things I care about, any of the things I care about as a progressive member of the United States Congress at the time, and as Vice President and as a Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 125
member of society. And one of the strategies that our community adopted was to target, when there were cases where there Buttigieg was gun violence and gang violence, which was slaughtering so many in our community, burying teenagers, disproportionately black teenagers, we adopted a strategy that said that drug enforcement would be targeted in cases where there was a connection to the most violent group or gang connected to a murder. These things are all connected, but that‘s the point. So are all of the things that need to change in order for us to prevent violence and remove the effects of systemic racism, not just from criminal justice, but from our economy, from health, from housing, and from our democracy itself. (Biden) But look, Amy is right, the senator‘s correct. That is that we, in fact, there is systematic racism, Biden and that‘s why our Justice Department works so hard to go after those. You know, realize there are 35 states in the United States of America that have come up with a total of 78 laws to restrict voting just in the last five years to try to keep African Americans from voting, and brown as well, black and brown people from voting. And that will be an enormous priority in my administration as it was in ours. It‘s just wrong, simply wrong.
Well, first of all, I want to defend the honor of the incredible two senators from New Hampshire, Jeanne Klobuchar Shaheen and Maggie Hassan, who work so hard for this state every day and I voted with them. Why did I vote with them? Because there were some major improvements in this trade agreement when it comes to labor inspections, when it comes to getting rid of a sweetheart pharma deal that was in place and when it comes to climate change, I think we have to have a North American trading block. We have to have Mexico and Canada and America working together and the best way to take on climate change as president, yes, I‘ll work to make this a part of every future trade agreement, but the best way to take on climate change is by getting back into the international climate change agreement, which I will do on day one. It is bringing back the clean power rules. It is bringing back the gas mileage standards and it is introducing sweeping legislation to put a price on carbon and you cannot divorce trade from that, and in future trade agreements, that should be part of our negotiations. But I‘m telling you right now, having no trade agreement with Canada and Mexico puts us at such a disadvantage when it comes to dealing with China and pushing China to do better when it comes to climate change.
I don't think there's any chance of the senator beating President Trump. You don't start out by saying I've Bloomberg NBC got 160 million people I'm going to take away the insurance plan that they love. That's just not a way that you go and start building the coalition that the Sanders camp thinks that they can do. I don't think there's any chance whatsoever. And if he goes and is the candidate, we will have Donald Trump for another four years. And we can't stand that.
Hey, I'm the only one on this stage that actually got anything done on health care, OK? I'm the guy the Biden president turned to and said, go get the votes for Obamacare. And I notice what everybody's talking about Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 126
is the plan that I first introduced. That is to go and add to Obamacare, provide a public option, a Medicare- like option. It cost -- and increase the subsidies. It cost a lot of money. It cost $750 billion over 10 years. But I paid for it by making sure that Mike and other people pay at the same tax rate their secretary pays at. That's how we get it paid, number one. Number two, you know, from the moment -- from the moment we passed that signature legislation, Mike called it a disgrace, number one. Number two, Trump decided to get rid of it. And, number three, my friends here came up with another plan. But they don't tell you, when you ask Bernie how much it costs, the last time he said that -- I think it was on your show -- he said we'll find out, we'll find out or something to that effect. It cost over $35 trillion bucks. Let's get real. Yes, I would. I've sat, I've apologized, I've asked for forgiveness, but the bottom line is that we stopped too Bloomberg many people, but the policy -- we stopped too many people. And we've got to make sure that we do something about criminal justice in this country. There is no great answer to a lot of these problems. And if we took off everybody that was wrong off this panel, everybody that was wrong on criminal justice at some time in their careers, there'd be nobody else up here. Let me say a couple of things, if I could have my full minute and a quarter, thank you. I have no tolerance Bloomberg for the kind of behavior that the "Me, Too" movement has exposed. And anybody that does anything wrong in our company, we investigate it, and if it's appropriate, they're gone that day. But let me tell you what I do at my company and my foundation and in city government when I was there. In my foundation, the person that runs it's a woman, 70 percent of the people there are women. In my company, lots and lots of women have big responsibilities. They get paid exactly the same as men. And in my -- in City Hall, the person, the top person, my deputy mayor was a woman, and 40 percent of our commissioners were women. I am very proud of the fact that about two weeks ago we were awarded, we were voted the most -- the best place to work, second best place in America. If that doesn't say something about our employees and how happy they are, I don't know what does. Senator, the company and somebody else, in this case -- a man or a woman or it could be more than that, Bloomberg they decided when they made an agreement they wanted to keep it quiet for everybody's interests. This is a race for president. This is a race for president. If winning a race for Senate in Minnesota Buttigieg translated directly to becoming president, I would have grown up under the presidency of Walter Mondale. This is different. And the reason that I think we need to talk about Washington experience is that we should ask what that experience has led to. Experience and certainly tenure is not always the same thing as judgment. If we're going to talk about votes in the Senate in Washington, let's talk about it.
I have made it very clear that we have to review all of the permits that are out there right now for natural Klobuchar gas and then make decisions on each one of them and then not grant new ones until we make sure that it's safe. But it is a transitional fuel. And I want to add something that really hasn't been brought up by my colleagues. This is a crisis, and a lot of our plans are very similar to get to carbon neutral by 2045, 2050, something like that. But we're not going to be able to pass this unless we bring people with us. I'm looking at these incredible senators from Nevada -- Catherine Cortez Masto and Jacky Rosen -- and I'm thinking that they know how important this is. And you can do this in a smart way. One, get back into that international climate change agreement. Two, clean power rules, bring those back. And the president can do this herself without Congress, as well as the gas mileage standard. But when it comes to putting a price Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 127
on carbon -- this is very important, Chuck -- we have to make sure that that money goes back directly as dividends to the people that are going to need help for paying their bills. Otherwise, we're not going to pass it. Let's be real about the deadline. It's not 2050, it's not 2040, it's not 2030. It's 2020. Because if we don't Buttigieg elect a president who actually believes in climate science now, we will never meet any of the other scientific or policy deadlines that we need to. So first of all, let's make sure we're actually positioned to win, which, once again, if we put forward two of the most polarizing figures on this stage as the only option, it's going to be a real struggle. Now, I've got a plan to get us carbon neutral by 2050. And I think everybody up here has a plan that more or less does the same. So the real question is, how are we going to actually get it done? We need leadership to make this a national project that breaks down the partisan and political tug of war that prevents anything from getting done. How do you do it? Well, first of all, making sure that those jobs are available quickly. Secondly, ensuring that we are pulling in those very sectors who have been made to feel like they're part of the problem, from farming to industry, and fund as well as urge them to do the right thing. And then global climate diplomacy. I'm a little skeptical of the idea that convincing is going to do the trick when it comes to working with China. America has repeatedly overestimated our ability to shape Chinese ambitions. But what we can do is ensure that we use the hard tools... Not if they are small businesses. I mean, what we've got to do is level the playing field, where a company Buttigieg like Amazon or Chevron is paying literally zero on billions of dollars in profits and it puts small businesses, like the ones that are revitalizing my own city, often Latino-owned on our west side, at a disadvantage. We need to recognize that investing in Latino entrepreneurship is not just an investment in the Latino community, it is an investment in the future of America. And it is time for a president who understands the value of immigration in lifting up all of our communities and our country. We're getting the exact opposite message from the current president. And it is time to recognize not just the diversity of the Latino community, but the importance of issues like economic empowerment, like health care, as well as immigration (Bloomberg) It's ridiculous. We're not going to throw out capitalism. We tried. Other countries tried that. It Bloomberg was called communism, and it just didn't work.
You know, if you excuse a point of personal privilege, they used to say, it was said that I was in the pocket Biden of Mitch McConnell. I'm the only person on this stage that's beaten Mitch McConnell on four major, major cases. Let me finish. Let me finish. And Mitch McConnell -- I've been the object of his affection and the president's affection, the way he's gone after me, this new Republican party, after me, after my son, after my family. I don't need to be told I'm a friend of Mitch McConnell's. Mitch McConnell has been the biggest pain in my neck in a long, long time. And so that's number one. Number two, we have to have somebody who understands what it's like for ordinary people. Ordinary people come up. They have to understand, like my dad made that longest walk up a short flight of stairs and said, "I don't have a job, honey, we have to move. You've got to move with Grandpa." How long it took to buy a house, how long it took to get back in the game again. They have to understand the needs of ordinary people. And they are getting killed, no matter what people say about this economy, how good it is. And the good part of the Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 128
economy, this -- it's only 60 seconds. It's not up yet. And the fact is that we are in a situation where you have, Mayor, the -- excuse me, the president making clear that he doesn't want any part of me being his opponent. He's spending $125,000 this week to keep me from being the opponent. I wonder why. Whatever the rules of the Democratic Party are, they should be followed. And if they have a process, Bloomberg which I believe they do… (Interrupt) Yes Do you think Senator Sanders' economy would be better for America than President Trump's? Bloomberg, Sanders CBS BLOOMBERG: I -- I think that Donald Trump thinks it would be better if he's president. I do not think so. Vladimir Putin thinks that Donald Trump should be president of the United States. And that's why Russia is helping you get elected, so you will lose to him. SANDERS: Oh, Mr. Bloomberg. Let me tell Mr. Putin, OK, I'm not a good friend of President Xi of China. I think President Xi is an authoritarian leader. And let me tell Mr. Putin, who interfered in the 2016 election, try to bring Americans against Americans, hey, Mr. Putin, if I'm president of the United States, trust me, you're not going to interfere in any more American elections.
I have been training for this job since I stepped on the pile that was still smoldering on 9/11. I know what Bloomberg to do. I've shown I know how to run a country. I've run the city which is almost the same size -- bigger than most countries in the world. I am not the -- I'm the one choice that makes some sense. I have the experience. I have the resources. And I have the record. And all those sideshows that the senator wants to bring up have nothing to do with that. When people hired me to run New York City three times, in an overwhelmingly Democratic, progressive city, they elected me again and again. I never said that. And for the record, if she was a teacher in New York City, she would never have had that Bloomberg problem. We treated our teachers the right way, and the unions will tell you exactly that. Thank you very much. Mayor Bloomberg has a solid and strong and enthusiastic base of support. The Sanders problem is, they're all billionaires. Now, if you look -- oh. On the other hand, of the last 50 polls that have been done nationally, Mr. Bloomberg, I beat Trump 47 of those 50 times. If you look at battleground states like Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, polling just done this Sunday... (Interrupt)... I beat Trump. And if you want to beat Trump, what you're going to need is an unprecedented...... grassroots movement of black and white and Latino, Native American and Asian, people who are standing up and fighting for justice.(Interrupt) That's what our movement is about. Because I'm the only one that ever got it done nationally. I beat the NRA twice. I got assault weapons Biden banned. I got magazines that could not hold more than 10 rounds in them. I got them eliminated. Except we had a thing called an election with hanging chads in Florida and it was not reauthorized. In addition to, that I passed the Brady Bill with waiting periods. I led that fight. But my friend to my right and others have in fact also gave into the gone manufacturers, absolute immunity. Imagine if I stood here and said we'd give immunity to drug companies. We would give immunity to tobacco companies. That has caused carnage on our streets, 150 million people have been killed since 2007 when Bernie voted to exempt the gun manufacturers from liability. More than all the wars, including Vietnam, from that point on. Carnage on our streets. And I want to tell you, if I'm elected, NRA, I'm coming for you, and gun manufacturers, I'm going to take you on and I'm going to beat you. I'm the only one who has done it. Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 129
I'm not sure they're appropriate every place. I can only tell you, in New York, they provided parents with Bloomberg an alternative to send students to them. We had -- the charter schools are mixed in with the non-charter public schools, because our charter schools are public schools, as well. They've helped each other. I saw a statistic the other day, when I came into office, zero New York City schools were in the top 25 of the state. When I left, 23 out of 25 were from New York City. We've cut the gap between the rich and the poor. We've made an enormous difference in all of the options that parents have. I raised teacher salaries by 43 percent. I put an extra $5 billion into our school system. I value education. It is the only way to solve the poverty problem is to get people a good education. And rather than just talk about it in New York, we actually did it. Thank you. This is one of the first times we've talked about housing. And I put forward an extensive Klobuchar policy. I think -- when I've looked at this both in my job in local government and in the Senate, one sure way we can make sure that kids get a good start is if they have a roof over their head and a stable place to live. So the way you do that is, first of all, taking care of the Section 8 backlog of applicants. There are literally hundreds of thousands of people waiting. And I have found a way to pay for this and a way to make sure that people get off that list and get into housing. Secondly, you create incentives for affordable housing to be built and, third, to help people pay for it. And I want to make clear, given South Carolina and the rural population, as well as urban, that this isn't just an urban problem. It's a big urban problem, but it's also a rural problem, where we have housing deserts and people want to have their businesses located there, but they're not able to get housing. So for me, it's building a coalition. And I actually like to get these things done and to -- the way you do it is by building a coalition between urban and rural so you can pass affordable housing and finally get it done.
Well, the battle has been going on for a long time in the Middle East, whether it's the Arabs versus the Bloomberg Persians, the Shias versus the Sunnis, the Jews in Israel and the Palestinians, it's only gone on for 40 or 50 years. Number one, you can't move the embassy back. We should not have done it without getting something from the Israeli government. But it was done, and you're going to have to leave it there. Number two, only solution here is a two-state solution. The Palestinians have to be accommodated. The real problem here is you have two groups of people, both who think God gave them the same piece of land. And the answer is to obviously split it up, leave the Israeli borders where they are, try to push them to pull back some of those extra over the -- on the other side of the wall, where they've built these new communities, which they should not have done that, pull it back.
Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 130
Appendix C: Buttigieg Database
Debate Date Question Asked Answer Type Type 2 27-Jun-19 Many of your colleagues Sure. So college affordability is personal for us. Chasten and I have six-figure student F D on stage support free debt. I believe in reducing student debt. It's logical to me that, if you can refinance college. You do not. Why your house, you ought to be able to refinance your student debt. I also believe in free not? college for low and middle-income students for whom cost could be a barrier. I just don't believe it makes sense to ask working-class families to subsidize even the children of billionaires. I think the children of the wealthiest Americans can pay at least a little bit of tuition. And while I want tuition costs to go down, I don't think we can buy down every last penny for them. Now, there's something else that doesn't get talked about in the college affordability debate. Yes, it needs to be more affordable in this country to go to college. It also needs to be more affordable in this country to not go to college. You should be able to live well, afford rent, be generous...... to your church and Little League, whether you went to college or not. Yeah, we've talked -- look, everybody who says Medicare for all, every person in N R politics who allows that phrase to escape their lips has a responsibility to explain how you're actually supposed to get from here to there. Now, here's how I would do it. It's Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 131
very similar. I would call it Medicare for all who want it. You take something like Medicare, a flavor of that, you make it available on the exchanges, people can buy in. And then if people like us are right, that that will be not only a more inclusive plan, but a more efficient plan than any of the corporate answers out there, then it will be a very natural glide path to the single-payer environment. But let's remember, even in countries that have outright socialized medicine, like England, even there, there's still a private sector. That's fine. It's just that for our primary care, we can't be relying on the tender mercies of the corporate system. This one is very personal for me. I started out this year dealing with the terminal illness of my father. I make decisions for a living, and nothing could have prepared me for the kind of decisions our family faced. But the thing we had going for us was that we never had to make those decisions based on whether it was going to bankrupt our family, because of Medicare. And I want every family to have that same freedom to do what is medically right, not live in financial fear. OK. A lot of you have Because our country is healthier when everybody is healthier. And, remember, we are P D been talking tonight about talking about something people are given a chance to buy into, in the same way that these government health there are undocumented immigrants in my community who pay, they pay sales taxes, care plans that you have they pay property taxes, directly or indirectly. This is not about a handout. This is an proposed in one form or insurance program. And we do ourselves no favors by having 11 million another. This is a show of undocumented people in our country be unable to access health care. But, of course, hands question, and hold the real problem is we shouldn't have 11 million undocumented people with no them up for a moment so pathway to citizenship. It makes no sense. And the American people... people can see. Raise (APPLAUSE) The American people agree on what to do. This is a crazy thing. your hand if your If leadership consists of forming a consensus around a divisive issue, this White government plan would House has divided us around a consensus issue. The American people want a provide coverage for pathway to citizenship, they want protections for DREAMers. We need to clean up undocumented the lawful immigration system, like how my father immigrated to this country. And immigrants. OK. Let me as part of a compromise, we can do whatever common-sense measures are needed at start with you, Mayor the border, but Washington can't deliver on something the American people want. Buttigieg, why? Mayor What does that tell you about the system we are living in? It tells you it needs Buttigieg, why? profound structural reform. Let's remember, that's not just a theoretical exercise. That criminalization, that is the P A, R basis for family separation. You do away with that, it's no longer possible. Of course it wouldn't be possible anyway in my presidency, because it is dead wrong. We've got to talk about one other thing, because the Republican Party likes to cloak itself in the language of religion. Now, our party doesn't talk about that as much, largely for a very good reason, which was, we are committed to the separation of church and state and we stand for people of any religion and people of no religion. But we should call out hypocrisy when we see it. And for a party that associates itself with Christianity, to say that it is OK to suggest that God would smile on the division of families at the Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 132
hands of federal agents, that God would condone putting children in cages has lost all claim to ever use religious language again. How would you -- how I mean, first of all, we've got to recognize that the China challenge really is a serious P D, I would you stand up one. This is not something to dismiss or wave away. And if you look at what China is against China? doing, they're using technology for the perfection of dictatorship. But their fundamental economic model isn't going to change because of some tariffs. I live in the industrial Midwest. Folks who aren't in the shadow of a factory are somewhere near a soy field where I live. And manufacturers, and especially soy farmers, are hurting. Tariffs are taxes. And Americans are going to pay on average $800 more a year because of these tariffs. Meanwhile, China is investing so that they could soon be able to run circles around us in artificial intelligence. And this president is fixated on the China relationship as if all that mattered was the export balance on dishwashers. We've got a much bigger issue on our hands. But at a moment when their authoritarian model is being held up as an alternative to ours because ours looks so chaotic compared to theirs right now because of our internal divisions, the biggest thing we've got to do is invest in our own domestic competitiveness. If we disinvest...(Interrupt) ... in our own infrastructure, education, we are never going to be able to compete. And if we really want to be an alternative, a democratic alternative, we actually have to demonstrate that we care about democratic values at home and around the world. In the last five years, civil Because I couldn't get it done. My community is in anguish right now because of an P D, I rights activists in our officer-involved shooting, a black man, Eric Logan, killed by a white officer. And I'm country have led a not allowed to take sides until the investigation comes back. The officer said he was national debate over race attacked with a knife, but he didn't have his body camera on. It's a mess. And we're and the criminal justice hurting. And I could walk you through all of the things that we have done as a system. Your community community, all of the steps that we took, from bias training to de-escalation, but it of South Bend, Indiana, didn't save the life of Eric Logan. And when I look into his mother's eyes, I have to has recently been in face the fact that nothing that I say will bring him back. This is an issue that is facing uproar over an officer- our community and so many communities around the country. And until we move involved shooting. The policing out from the shadow of systemic racism, whatever this particular incident police force in South teaches us, we will be left with the bigger problem of the fact that there is a wall of Bend is now 6 percent mistrust put up one racist act at a time, not just from what's happened in the past, but black in a city that is 26 from what's happening around the country in the present. It threatens the well-being percent black. Why has of every community. And I am determined to bring about a day when a white person that not improved over driving a vehicle and a black person driving a vehicle, when they see a police officer your two terms as mayor? approaching, feels the exact same thing ...(Interrupt)... a feeling not of fear but of safety. I am determined to bring that day about. I've got to respond to that. Look, we have taken so many steps toward police P R accountability that, you know, the FOP just denounced me for too much accountability. We're obviously not there yet, and I accept responsibility for that Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 133
because I'm in charge. So under Indiana law, this will be investigated and there will be accountability for the P R officer involved. Mayor Buttigieg, in your Well, the reality is we need to begin adapting right away, but we also can't skip a beat P D, I climate plan, if you are on preventing climate change from getting even worse. It's why we need aggressive elected president, in your and ambitious measures. It's why we need to do a carbon tax and dividend. But I first term, how is this would propose we do it in a way that is rebated out to the American people in a going to help farmers progressive fashion so that most Americans are made more than whole. This isn't impacted by climate theoretical for us in South Bend, either. Parts of California are on fire. Right here in change in the Midwest? Florida, they're talking about sea level rise. Well, in Indiana I had to activate the emergency operations center of our city twice in less than two years. The first time was a 1,000-year flood and the next time was a 500-year flood. This is not just happening on the Arctic ice caps; this is happening in the middle of the country. And we've got to be dramatically more aggressive moving forward. Now, here's what very few people talk about. First of all, rural America can be part of the solution instead of being told they're part of the problem. With the right kind of soil management and other kind of investments, rural America could be a huge part of how we get this done. And secondly, we've got to look to the leadership of local communities, you know, those networks of mayors in cities from around the world... (Interrupt)... not even waiting for our national governments to catch up. We should have a Pittsburgh summit where we bring them together, as well as rejoining the Paris... OK, Mayor Buttigieg, We've got to fix our democracy before it's too late. Get that right, climate, N D your first priority, your immigration, taxes, and every other issue gets better. first issue as president that you are going to block and tackle. Mayor Buttigieg, I want Yes, of course, because we trained on some of these kinds of weapons. Look, every P D to bring you in on this, part of my life experience informs this, being the mayor of a city where the worst part Sir. A lot of discussions of the job is dealing with violence. We lose as many as were lost at Parkland every about assault rifles that two or three years in my city alone. And this is tearing communities apart. If more are often shorthanded as guns made us safer, we would be the safest country on earth. It doesn't work that way. military-style weapons. And common-sense measures like universal background checks can't seem to get You are the only person delivered by Washington, even when most Republicans, let alone most Americans, on this stage tonight with agree it's the right thing to do. And as somebody who trained on weapons of war, I military experience as a can tell you that there are weapons that have absolutely no place in American cities or veteran of the neighborhoods in peacetime, ever. Afghanistan War. Will military families -- does that inform your thinking on this view? Do you Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 134
believe that military families or America's veterans will at large have a different take on this than the other Americans who we have been talking about and who Congressman Swalwell is appealing to with his buyback program? We have no idea which of our most important allies he will have pissed off worse N R between now and then. What we know is that our relationship with the entire world needs to change. And it starts by modelling American values at home. 30-Jul-19 I want to bring in Mayor So we don't have to stand up here speculating about whether the public option will be N D,R Buttigieg. On the topic of better or a Medicare for All environment will be better than the corporate options. We whether or not the middle can put it to the test. That's the concept of my Medicare for All Who Want It class should pay higher proposal. That way, if people like me are right that the public alternative is going to taxes in exchange for be not only more comprehensive, but more affordable than any of the corporate guaranteed health care options around there, we'll see Americans walk away from the corporate options into and the elimination of that Medicare option, and it will become Medicare for All without us having to kick insurance premiums, how anybody off their insurance. do you respond, Mayor? Just 15 seconds on the I think you can buy into it. That's the idea of Medicare for All Who Want It. Look, N D clarification. You are this is a distinction without a difference, whether you're paying the same money in willing to raise taxes on the form of taxes or premiums. Look, in this country, if you have health coverage -- if middle-class Americans you don't have health coverage, you're paying too much for care, and if you do have in order to have universal health coverage, you're paying too much for care. coverage with the disappearance of insurance premiums, yes or no? It is time to stop worrying about what the Republicans will say. Look, if -- If it's true F R that if we embrace a far-left agenda they're going to say we're a bunch of crazy socialists. If we embrace a conservative agenda, you know what they're going to do? They're going to say we're a bunch of crazy socialists. So let's just stand up for the right policy, go out there and defend it. That's the policy I'm putting forward, not because I think it's the right triangulation between Republicans here and Democrats there -- because I think it's the right answer for people like my mother-in- law who is here -- whose life was saved by the ACA, but who is still far too vulnerable to the fact that the insurance industry does not care about her -- Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 135
Mayor Buttigieg, you're When I am president, illegally crossing the border will still be illegal. We can argue P D in favor of getting rid of over the finer points of which parts of this ought to be handled by civil law and which the law that makes it a parts ought to be handled by criminal law. But we've got a crisis on our hands. And crime to come across the it's not just a crisis of immigration; it's a crisis of cruelty and incompetence that has U.S. border illegally. created a humanitarian disaster on our southern border. It is a stain on the United Why won't that just States of America. Americans want comprehensive immigration reform. And frankly, encourage more illegal we've been talking about the same framework for my entire adult lifetime, protections immigration? for DREAMers; making sure that -- that we have a pathway to citizenship for the undocumented; cleaning up lawful immigration. We know what to do. We know that border security can be part of that package and we can still be a nation of laws. The problem is we haven't had the will to get it done in Washington. And now we have a president who could fix it in a month, because there is that bipartisan agreement, but he needs it to be a crisis rather than an achievement. That will end on my watch. But just a point of So in my view, if fraud is involved, then that's suitable for the criminal statute. If not, N D, I clarification, you did raise then it should be handled under civil law. But these show of hands are exactly what is your hand in the last wrong with the way that this race is being covered. (interrupt) And we appreciate debate. You do want to that. decriminalize crossing the border illegally? Go ahead. Thank you, Well, this epidemic of gun violence has hit my community too, far too many times. P D Ms. Williamson. Let's It's the worst part of being there, getting the phone call, consoling, grieving parents. turn now to the issue of And we have a mass shooting's worth of killings every day in this country. What gun violence. There were we're doing hasn't worked because we haven't had a system in Washington capable of three large-scale delivering what the American people have told us they want. Eighty, 90 percent of shootings this past week Republicans want universal background checks, not to mention the common sense in America, at a park in solutions like red flag laws that disarmed domestic abusers and flag mental health Brooklyn, on the streets risks and an end to assault weapons, things like what I carried overseas in uniform, on Philadelphia and one that have no business in American neighbors in peace time (ph), let alone anywhere that left three dead and 12 near a school. I was at an event a few days ago, and a 13-year-old asked me what injured at a food festival we're going to do about school safety, and then began shaking and then began crying. in Gilroy, California. And we can talk about these policies, but we already know the policies. I only thing I Governor - excuse me, could think of, looking into the eyes of this child, is we're supposed to be dealing with Mayor Buttigieg, other this so you don't have to. High school is hard enough, without having to worry about than offering words of whether you're going to get shot. comfort, what're you specially going to do to stop this epidemic of gun violence? This is the exact same conversation we've been having since - since I was in high P R school. I was a junior when the Columbine shooting happened. I was part of the first Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 136
generation that saw routine school shootings. We have now produced the second school shooting generation in this country. We better not allow there to be a third. Something is broken if it is even possible for the same debate around the same solutions that we all know are the right thing to do. They won't prevent every incident. They won't save every life. But we know what to do, and it has not happened. Still the conversation that we've been having for the last 20 years. Of course we need N R, I to get money out of politics. But when I propose the actual structural democratic reforms that might make a difference, end the Electoral College, amend the Constitution, if necessary, to clear up Citizens United, have D.C. actually be a state, and depoliticize the Supreme Court with structural reform, people look at me funny, as if this country were incapable of structural reform. Does anybody really think we're going to overtake Citizens United without constitutional action? This is a country that once changed its Constitution so you couldn't drink and then changed it back because we changed our minds about that.(Interrupt)And you're telling me we can't reform our democracy in our time? (Interrupt)We have to or we'll be having the same argument 20 years from now. We have all put out highly similar visions on climate. It is all theoretical. We will P R, I deal with climate, if and only if we win the presidency, if and only if we beat Donald Trump. Nominate me, and you get to see the president of the United States stand next to an American war veteran and explain why he chose to pretend to be disabled when it was chance to serve. Nominate me, and we will have a different conversation with American voters about why the president of the United States thinks you're a sucker, when the problem in your life is your paycheck is not going up nearly as fast as the cost of housing or the cost of education ...(Interrupt)... or the cost of prescription drugs. And he has done nothing about it except ...(Interrupt)... the tax cuts for the corporations Mayor Buttigieg, you As an urban mayor serving a diverse community, the racial divide lives within me. P D, I have been criticized for I'm not saying that I became mayor and racism or crime or poverty ended on my your handling of racial watch. But in our city, we have come together repeatedly to tackle challenges, like the issues in your home city fact that far too many people were not getting the help they needed in their housing of South Bend, from and so we directed it to a historically underinvested African-American neighborhood. diversity in the police Right now, in the wake of a police-involved shooting, our community is moving from force to housing policy. hurting to healing by making sure that the community can participate in things like Given your record, how revising the use of force policy and making sure there are community voices on the can you convince board of safety that handles police matters. I've proposed a Douglass plan to tackle African-Americans that this issue nationally, because mayors have hit the limits of what you can do unless you should be the there is national action. Systemic racism has touched every part of American life, Democratic nominee? from housing to health to homeownership. If you walk into an emergency room and you are black, your reports of pain will be taken less seriously. If you apply for a job Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 137
and you are black, you are less likely to be called just because of the name on the resume. It's why I've proposed that we do everything from investing in historically red-lined neighborhoods...(Interrupt)... to build black wealth in homeownership...(Interrupt)... to supporting entrepreneurship for black Americans. Mayor -- standby, please. Well, this happened in my community 20 years before I was born. And when I was P D, I Standby, please. Please growing up, we were still picking up the pieces. Empty factories, empty houses, abide by the rules. Mayor poverty. I know exactly what happens to a community when these closures take Buttigieg, on Thursday of place. And there will be more. It's why we actually need to put the interests of this week, a GM plant in workers first. Of course we need to do retraining. We're doing it now in South Bend. Michigan will stop We should continue to do it. But this is so much bigger than a trade fight. This is production, the latest auto about a moment when the economy is changing before our eyes. There are people in plant to cease operations the gig economy who go through more jobs in a week than my parents went through in the industrial Midwest. in their lifetime. It's why I've proposed that we allow gig workers to unionize, This comes as part of the because a gig is a job and a worker is a worker.(Interrupt)We have to respond to all of company's modernization these changes. And, you know, in addition to confronting tech, in addition to plans, which will supporting workers by double unionization, as I propose to do, some of this is low- eventually result in 6,000 tech, too, like the minimum wage is just too low. And so-called conservative hourly workers losing Christian senators right now in the Senate are blocking a bill to raise the minimum their jobs or being wage, when scripture says that whoever oppresses the poor taunts their maker. reassigned to other plants. What is your plan for retraining workers whose jobs are at risk? Mayor Buttigieg, you've That would be great for us. And then the next day, there would be a student loan P D talked about how you and program and people would be out taking student loans wondering they weren't -- why your husband are...... they weren't lucky enough in timing to get theirs wiped away completely, too. We can paying down six figures have debt-free college for low and middle-income students by expanding Pell Grants of student loan debt. and compelling states to pick up more of the burden. And on the back end, for those Under Senator Sanders' of us who do have a lot of debt, we can make it more affordable and we can expand a proposal to cancel all public service loan forgiveness program, which is an excellent program that is almost student loan debt, yours impossible to actually get access to right now. We can take these steps and have an would immediately be approach that is actually fair. If we want to start wiping away student debt, here's wiped away. Why where I would start. I would start with the for-profit colleges that took advantage of wouldn't you support people, especially veterans, by the way. The moment I redeployed, my Facebook add that? feed started filling with ads from these for-profit colleges. Under President Obama, they were held accountable for whether they delivered results. President Trump, under a secretary of education who regrettably is from this state, did away with those rules. There's no accountability. On my watch, those colleges that turned the Department of Education into a predatory lender, that's where we would begin when it came to getting rid of loans. Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 138
Mayor Buttigieg, you We will withdraw. We have to. (Interrupt) Yes. Look, around the world, we will do F D, I served in Afghanistan whatever it takes to keep America safe. But I thought I was one of the last troops where just yesterday two leaving Afghanistan when I thought I was turning out the lights years ago. Every time U.S. servicemembers I see news about somebody being killed in Afghanistan, I think about what it was like were killed. There are to hear an explosion over there and wonder whether it was somebody that I served currently about 14,000 with, somebody that I knew, a friend, roommate, colleague. We're pretty close to the U.S. servicemembers in day when we will wake up to the news of a casualty in Afghanistan who was not born Afghanistan. You've said, on 9/11. I was sent into that war by a congressional authorization, as well as a quote, "One thing president. And we need to talk not only about the need for a president committed to everybody can agree on is ending endless war, but the fact that Congress has been asleep at the switch. And on that we're getting out of my watch, I will propose that any authorization for the use of military force have a Afghanistan." Will you three-year sunset and have to be renewed, because if men and women in the military withdraw all U.S. have the courage to go serve, members of Congress ought to have to summon the servicemembers by the courage to vote on whether they ought to be there. end of your first year in office? So Mayor Buttigieg, you I don't care how old you are. I care about your vision. But I do think it matters that we F D just qualified. You're 37, have a new generation of leaders stepping up around the world, leaders like the... I the youngest candidate in actually think it's good that the prime minister of New Zealand's gotten a lot of this field. Standing next attention in Democratic debates. She's masterful. She is younger than I would be to you is the oldest when I take office. This is the kind of trend America might be leading, instead of candidate, Bernie following, but only if it's actually backed by the right vision. And we can have great Sanders, at age 77. presidents at any age. What I will say is we need the kind of vision that's going to Should voters take into win. We cannot have a vision that amounts to back to normal. Because the only consideration age when reason we got this president is that normal didn't work. We have to be ready to take choosing a presidential on this president and, by the way, something that hasn't been talked about as much candidate? tonight, take on his enablers in Congress. You know, when...... when David Duke -- when David Duke ran for Congress -- ran for governor, the Republican Party, 20 years ago, ran away from him. Today they are supporting naked racism in the White House, or at best silent about it. And if you are watching this at home and you are a Republican member of Congress, consider the fact that, when the sun sets on your career and they are writing your story, of all the good and bad things you did in your life, the thing you will be remembered for is whether, in this moment, with this president, you found the courage to stand up to him or you continued to put party over country. 12-Sep-19 The problem, Senator Sanders, with that damn bill that you wrote, and that Senator P R Warren backs, is that it doesn't trust the American people. I trust you to choose what makes the most sense for you. Not my way or the highway. Now look, I think we do have to go far beyond tinkering with the ACA. I propose Medicare for all who want it. We take a version of Medicare, we make it available for the American people, and Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 139
if we're right, as progressives, that that public alternative is better, then the American people will figure that out for themselves. I trust the American people to make the right choice for them. Why don't you? This is why presidential debates are becoming unwatchable. This reminds everybody N R of what they cannot stand about Washington, scoring points against each other, poking at each other, and telling each other that -- my plan, your plan. Look, we all have different visions for what is better... Mayor Buttigieg, you've I believe what's deepened divisions in the country is the conduct of this president, and F D, I been struggling with we have a chance to change all of that. Look, systemic racism preceded this president, issues around race in your and even when we defeat him, it will be with us. That's why we need a systemic own community. You've approach to dismantle it. It's -- it's not enough to just take a racist policy, replace it also said that anyone who with a neutral one and expect things will just get better on their own. Harms votes to re-elect President compound. In the same way that a dollar saved compounds, so does a dollar stolen. Trump is, at best, looking And we know that the generational theft of the descendants of slaves is part of why the other way on racism. everything from housing to education to health to employment basically puts us in Does that sort of talk two different countries. I have proposed the most comprehensive vision to tackle alienate voters and systemic racism in every one of these areas, marshaling as many resources as went potentially deepen into the Marshall plan that rebuilt Europe, but this time, a Douglass plan that we divisions in our country? invest right here at home, to make sure that we're not only dealing with things like the overincarceration of black Americans, but also black solutions, entrepreneurship, raising to 25 percent...(Interrupt)... the target for the federal government to do business with minority-owned businesses, investing in HBCUs that are training and educating the next generation of entrepreneurs. (Interrupt) We can and must do that. But that means transcending this framework that pits us against each other, that pits a single black mother of three against a displaced auto worker. Because when I -- where I come from, a lot of times that displaced auto worker is a single black mother of three. We've got to say that...(interrupt)... and bring people together. Pete, eight out of 10 Anyone who supports this is supporting racism. The only people, though, who F D Latinos in Texas for actually buy into this president's hateful rhetoric around immigrants are people who another mass shooter don't know any. We have an opportunity to build an American majority around targeting them. This is immigration reform. In my community, a group of conservative Republicans rallied according to a new around an individual, a beloved local individual who was deported when he went into Univision poll. President ICE to try to get his paperwork sorted out, because they never thought it would Trump has called happen to him. In some of the most conservative, rural areas of Iowa, I have seen Mexican immigrants communities that embraced immigration grow. And that's why part of my plan for rapists and killers, tried to revitalizing the economies of rural America includes community renewal visas that ban Muslims from would allow cities and towns and counties that are hurting not only for jobs but for entering the country population to embrace immigration as we have in my city. You know, the only reason separated children from that South Bend is growing right now, after years of shrinking, is immigration. It's their parents. He one of the reasons we acted, not waiting for Washington, to create city-issued Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 140
supporters have chanted, municipal IDs, so that people, regardless of immigration status in our city, had the build a wall and send her opportunity to have the benefits of identification. We have an opportunity to actually back. Do you think that get something done. But we cannot allow this continue to be the same debate with the people who support same arguments and the same clever lines often among the same people since the last President Trump and his real reform happened in the 1980s. We have to actually engage the American immigration policies are majority around the opportunities for not just growth in small communities, but our racist? values. Values of welcome, values of faith that all argue for us to manage this humanely and in a way that marries our values with our laws. Mayor Pete, let me take Well, the president clearly has no strategy. You know, when I first got into this race, I P D that question -- let me remember President Trump scoffed and said he'd like to see me making a deal with take that question to you, Xi Jinping. I'd like to see him making a deal with Xi Jinping. Is it just me, or was that because you've seen supposed to happen in, like, April? It's one more example of a commitment not made. President Trump's tweets. When that happens on the international stage, people take note, not just our He says what's going to competitors, our adversaries, but also our allies take note of the inability of the United happen here is the States to keep its word or follow through on its plans. And when that happens, there Chinese are just going to are serious consequences. We saw it at the G7. The leaders of some of the greatest wait him out so that they powers and economies of the world sitting to talk about one of the greatest challenges can get a Democrat who in the world, climate change, and there was literally an empty chair where American they can take advantage leadership could have been. The problem is, this is a moment when American of. How do you think leadership is needed more than ever, whether it's in Hong Kong, where those about China? We've seen protesters for democracy need to know that they have a friend in the United States, or President Trump call anywhere around the world where increasingly we see dictators throwing their weight President Xi both an around. The world needs America, but it can't be just any America. enemy and a friend. Would you repeal the I would have a strategy that would include the tariffs as leverage, but it's not about N D tariffs? the tariffs. Look, what's going on right now is a president who has reduced the entire China challenge into a question of tariffs, when what we know is that the tariffs are coming down on us more than anybody else and there's a lack of a bigger strategy. I do want to stay on this, You know, I served under General Dunford, way under General Dunford, in N D and I want to turn to Afghanistan. And today, September 12, 2019, means that today you could be 18 years Mayor BUTTIGIEG:, old, old enough to serve, and had not been alive on 9/11. We have got to put an end to because you're the only endless war. And the way we do it is see to it that that country will never again be veteran on this stage. You used for an attack against our homeland, and that does not require an open-ended served in Afghanistan. commitment of ground troops. Let me say something else, because if there's one thing We heard in recent days we've learned about Afghanistan, from Afghanistan, it's that the best way not to be from General Joseph caught up in endless war is to avoid starting one in the first place. And so when I am Dunford, the chair of the president, an authorization for the use of military force will have a built-in three-year Joint Chiefs of Staff, who sunset. Congress will be required to vote and a president will be required to go to said in recent days, "I'm Congress to seek an authorization. Because if our troops can summon the courage to not going to use the word go overseas, the least our members of Congress should be able to do is summon the Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 141
withdrawal right now. It's courage to take a vote on whether they ought to be there. By the way, we also have a our judgment the Afghans president right now who seems to treat troops as props, or worse, tools for his own need support to deal with enrichment. We saw what's going on with flights apparently being routed through the level of violence." If Scotland just so people can stay at his hotels? I'll tell you, as a military officer, the he's not even using the very first thing that goes through your mind, the first time you ever make eye contact word withdrawal, would with somebody that you are responsible for in uniform, is do not let these men and you put your promise to women down. This president is doing exactly that. I will not. bring troops home in the first year on hold to follow the advice? Step one is appoint a secretary of education who actually believes in public F R education. I believe in public education. And in order to strengthen it, some things are very complex, for preparing for a future where knowledge is at your fingertips, but we have got to teach more to do with critical thinking and social and emotional learning. Some of it is extremely simple, we have just got to pay teachers more. And we have got to lift up the teaching profession. I always think of a story from South Bend of friends who hosted exchange students from Japan. They had a student one year who wanted to be a teacher. And they kept in touch with her when she went back to Japan and to college. She took the exam to try to become a teacher in a society that really regards teachers and compensates teachers well. And she came up just short. So, you know what she did? Since she was academically good but couldn't quite make the cut to be a teacher, she had a fallback plan, she became a doctor. That is how seriously some countries treat the teaching profession. If we want to get the results that we expect for our children, we have to support and compensate the teaching profession. Respect teachers the way we do soldiers and pay them more like the way we do doctors. And, candidates, the You know, as a military officer serving under "don't ask/don't tell," and as an elected F D,R question is on the quality official in the state of Indiana when Mike Pence was governor, at a certain point, of resilience. No when it came to professional setbacks, I had to wonder whether just acknowledging president can succeed who I was, was going to be the ultimate career-ending professional setback. I came without resilience. Every back from the deployment and realized that you only get to live one life. And I was president confronts crises, not interested in not knowing what it was like to be in love any longer, so I just came defeats, and mistakes. So out. I had no idea what kind of professional setback it would be, especially because I want to ask each of you, inconveniently it was an election year in my socially conservative community. What what's the most happened was that, when I trusted voters to judge me based on the job that I did for significant professional them, they decided to trust me and re-elected me with 80 percent of the vote. And setback you've had to what I learned was that trust can be reciprocated and that part of how you can win and face? How did you deserve to win is to know what's worth more to you than winning. And I think that's recover from it? And what we need in the presidency right now. We have to know what we are about. And what did you learn from this election is not about any of us up here. It is not about this president, even though Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 142
it? it's hard to talk of anything else some days. It's about the people who trust us with their lives, a kid wondering if we're actually going to make their schools safe when they've learned active shooter drills before they've learned to read, a generation wondering we will actually get the job done on climate change. And if we hold to that, then it doesn't matter what happens to each of us professionally. Together, we will win a better era for our country. 15-Oct-19 Mayer Buttigieg, you Well, it's a mistake on the part of Republicans, who enable the president whose P D have said that actions are as offensive to their own supposed values as they are to the values that we impeachment should be all share. Look, the president has left the Congress with no choice. And this is not just bipartisan. There's been, about holding the president accountable, for not just the things emerging in these obviously, very little investigations, but actions that he has confessed to on television. It's also about the Republican support to presidency itself, because a president 10 years or 100 years from now will look back date, yet Democrats are at this moment and draw the conclusion either that no one is above the law or that a proceeding. Is that a president can get away with anything. But everyone on this stage, by definition, is mistake? competing to be a president for after the Trump presidency. Remember, one way or the other, this presidency is going to come to an end. I want you to picture what it's going to be like, what it's actually going to feel like in this country the first day the sun comes up after Donald Trump has been president. It starts out feeling like a happy thought; this particular brand of chaos and corruption will be over. But really think about where we'll be: vulnerable, even more torn apart by politics than we are right now. And these big issues from the economy to climate change have not taken a vacation during the impeachment process. I'm running to be the president who can turn the page and unify a dangerously polarized country while tackling those issues that are going to be just as urgent then as they are now. Mayor Buttigieg, you say Well, we heard it tonight, a yes or no question that didn't get a yes or no answer. P D Senator Warren has been, Look, this is why people here in the Midwest are so frustrated with Washington in quote, "evasive" about general and Capitol Hill in particular. Your signature, Senator, is to have a plan for how she's going to pay everything. Except this. No plan has been laid out to explain how a multi-trillion- for Medicare for all. dollar hole in this Medicare for all plan that Senator Warren is putting forward is What's your response? supposed to get filled in. And the thing is, we really can deliver health care for every American and move forward with the boldest, biggest transformation since the inception of Medicare itself. But the way to do it without a giant multi-trillion-dollar hole and without having to avoid a yes-or-no question is Medicare for all who want it. We take a version of Medicare. We let you access it if you want to. And if you prefer to stay on your private plan, you can do that, too. That is what most Americans want, Medicare for all who want it, trusting you to make the right decision for your health care and for your family. And it can be delivered without an increase on the middle- class taxes. I don't think the American people are wrong when they say that what they want is a P R choice. And the choice of Medicare for all who want it, which is affordable for Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 143
everyone, because we make sure that the subsidies are in place, allows you to get that health care. It's just better than Medicare for all whether you want it or not. And I don't understand why you believe the only way to deliver affordable coverage to everybody is to obliterate private plans, kicking 150 million Americans off of their insurance in four short years, when we could achieve that same big, bold goal -- and once again, we have a president -- we're competing to be president for the day after Trump. Our country will be horrifyingly polarized, even more than now, after everything we've been through, after everything we are about to go through, this country will be even more divided. Why unnecessarily divide this country over health care when there's a better way to deliver coverage for all? I'm all for a wealth tax. I'm all for just about everything that was just mentioned in N R, I these answers. Let me tell, though, how this looks from the industrial Midwest where I live. Washington politicians, congressmen and senators, saying all the right things, offering the most elegant policy prescriptions, and nothing changes. I didn't even realize it was unusual to have empty factories that I would see out the windows of my dad's Chevy Cavalier when he drove me to school, I didn't know that wasn't every city until I went away to college. Now I drive my own Chevy. It's a Chevy Cruze. It used to be built right in Lordstown, which is now one more symbol of the broken promises that this president has made to workers. But why did workers take a chance on this president in the first place? It's because it felt like nobody was willing to actually do anything. And while he's unquestionably made it dramatically worse, this is time to realize that we're paying attention to the wrong things. We're paying attention... (Interrupt)... to who sounded better on a debate stage or in a committee hearing... (Interrupt) This is what it's going to take to get something done. Thank you, Senator. Well, respectfully, Congresswoman, I think that is dead wrong. The slaughter going P D, I, R Mayor Buttigieg, Mayor on in Syria is not a consequence of American presence. It's a consequence of a Buttigieg, like many of withdrawal and a betrayal by this president of American allies and American values. your fellow candidates on Look, I didn't think we should have gone to Iraq in the first place. I think we need to the stage, you've been get out of Afghanistan. But it's also the case that a small number of specialized, calling for an end to special operations forces and intelligence capabilities were the only thing that stood endless wars. What's your between that part of Syria and what we're seeing now, which is the beginning of a response on Syria? genocide and the resurgence of ISIS. Meanwhile, soldiers in the field are reporting that for the first time they feel ashamed -- ashamed -- of what their country has done. We saw the spectacle, the horrifying sight of a woman with the lifeless body of her child in her arms asking, what the hell happened to American leadership? And when I was deployed, I knew one of the things keeping me safe was the fact that the flag on my shoulder represented a country known to keep its word. And our allies knew it and our enemies knew it. (Interrupt)You take that away; you are taking away what makes America America. (Interrupt)It makes our troops and the world a much more dangerous place. Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 144
No, you can embrace -- or you can put an end to endless war without embracing P R,I Donald Trump's policy, as you're doing.(Interrupt)What we are doing…(Interrupt)What we are doing -- or what we were doing in Syria was keeping our word. Part of what makes it possible for the United States to get people to put their lives on the line to back us up is the idea that we will back them up, too. When I was deployed, not just the Afghan National Army forces, but the janitors put their lives on the line just by working with U.S. forces. I would have a hard time today looking an Afghan civilian or soldier in the eye after what just happened over there. And it is undermining the honor of our soldiers. You take away the honor of our soldiers, you might as well go after their body armor next. This president has betrayed American values. Our credibility has been tattered. (Interrupt)I will restore U.S. credibility before it is finally too late. But this is really important, because what this president has done shows that P R, I American leadership shapes the behavior of our allies, or sometimes allies, too. Remember, the problem right now is not just that -- with our competitors. And, for example a place like China, the people of Hong Kong rise up for democracy and don't get a peep of support from the president. It's just not the behavior of adversaries like Russia. But our one-time allies, like Saudi Arabia, which the CIA just concluded was responsible, as we all knew, for murdering and dismembering an American resident and journalist. And Turkey, which was an American ally. That's the point. We had leverage. But when we abandon the international stage, when we think our only choices are between endless war or total isolation, the consequence is the disappearance of U.S. leadership...(interrupt) ... from the world stage. (Interrupt)And that makes this entire world a more dangerous place. Thank you. Mayor Look, Congressman, you just made it clear that you don't know how this is actually P D Buttigieg, just yesterday, going to take weapons off the streets. If you can develop the plan further, I think we you referred to mandatory can have a debate about it. But we can't wait. People are dying in the streets right buybacks as confiscation now. We can't wait for universal background checks that we finally have a shot to and said that actually get through. We can't wait to ban the sale of new weapons and high-capacity Congressman O'Rourke magazines so we don't wind up with millions more of these things on the street. We has been picking a fight can't wait for red flag laws that are going to disarm domestic abusers and prevent to try to stay relevant. suicides, which are not being talked about nearly enough as a huge part of the gun Your response on guns? violence epidemic in this country. We cannot wait for purity tests. We have to just get something done. The problem isn't the polls. The problems is the policy. And I don't need lessons from P R you on courage, political or personal. Everyone on this stage is determined to get something done. Everyone on this stage recognizes, or at least I thought we did, that the problem is not other Democrats who don't agree with your particular idea of how to handle this. The problem is the National Rifle Association and their enablers in Congress, and we should be united in taking the fight to them. Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 145
What we owe to those survivors is to actually deliver a solution. I'm glad you offered P R, I up that analogy to health care, because this is really important. We are at the cusp of building a new American majority to actually do things that congressmen and senators have been talking about with almost no impact for my entire adult life. (Interrupt) No, this is really important, OK? On guns, we are this close to an assault weapons ban. That would be huge. And we're going to get wrapped around the axle in a debate over whether it's "hell, yes, we're going to take your guns"? We have an opportunity... (Interrupt)... to deliver health care to everybody, and some on this stage are saying it doesn't count unless we obliterate... That's right. When I proposed reforming the Supreme Court, some folks said that was P R, I too bold to even contemplate. Now, I'm not talking about packing the court just with people who agree with me, although I certainly will appoint people who share my values, for example, the idea that women's reproductive freedom is an American right. What I'm talking about is reforms that will depoliticize the court. We can't go on like this, where every single time there is a vacancy, we have this apocalyptic ideological firefight over what to do next. Now, one way to fix this would be to have a 15-member court where five of the members can only be appointed by unanimous agreement of the other 10. Smarter legal minds than mine are discussing this in the Yale Law Journal and how this could be done without a constitutional amendment. But the point is that not everybody arrives on a partisan basis. There are other reforms that we could consider, from term limits -- don't forget, justices used to just retire like everybody else -- to a rotation off the appellate bench.(Interrupt) I'm not wedded to a particular solution, but I am committed to establishing a commission on day one...(interrupt)... that will propose reforms to depoliticize the Supreme Court, because we can't go on like this Mayor Buttigieg, which is If I had a buck for every argument that I've witnessed like this, I could pay for college P D, R, I the right vision for a for everybody. We need to move past what has been consuming this whole political Democrat to beat Donald space for as long as I've been alive. We're being offered a false choice. I don't agree Trump? That's the with the vice president that Trump is an aberration. I don't agree that there's any such essential question. thing as back to normal. Because here in the industrial Midwest, definitely where I live, normal didn't work. That's part of how we got here. That's part of how a guy like Donald Trump managed to get within cheating distance of the Oval Office in the first place. But I also don't agree with Senator Warren that the only way forward is infinite partisan combat. Yes, we have to fight -- absolutely, we have to fight for the big changes at hand, but it's going to take more than fighting. Once again, I want to take you back to that day after Trump has stopped being president. Think about what the president can do to unify a new American majority for some of the boldest things we've attempted in my lifetime -- Medicare for all who want it, actually getting something done on immigration for the first time since the '80s, an assault weapons ban, which would be a huge deal, making college free for low- and middle-income Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 146
students. Yet there are some here on this stage who say it doesn't count unless we go even further, free college for low- and middle-income students isn't good enough unless we're also paying for the children of billionaires. Immigration reform isn't enough unless we also decriminalize border crossings. We have an opportunity to do the biggest things we've done...(interrupt) ... in my lifetime... So in that spirit, we'd like Well, I think about the friendships that I formed in the military, people who were F D you to tell us about a radically different from me, different generation, different race, definitely different friendship that you've had politics. And we learned to trust each other with our lives. When they got into my that would surprise us and vehicle and when we went outside the wire, they didn't care if I was going home to a what impact it's had on boyfriend or a girlfriend, they didn't care what country my dad immigrated from and you and your beliefs. whether he was documented or not. We just learned to trust each other. In fact, the fact that I want every American to have that experience without having to go to war to get there is one of the reasons why I believe national service is so important. I guess I'll follow in the pattern tonight and point out you can go to peteforamerica.com and read all about it. It's also about building a sense of belonging in this country, because I think that's what friendship and that's what service can create. And I think we have a crisis of belonging in this country that is helping to explain so many of our problems, from our politics being what it is to the fact that people are self-medicating and we're seeing a rise in the deaths from despair. I believe only the president can build a sense of belonging and purpose for the entire country. The purpose of the presidency is not the glorification of the president. It is the unification of the American people. And I'm asking for your vote to be that president, when the dust clears over the rubble of our norms and institutions at the end of the Trump presidency, pick up the pieces and guide us toward a better future. 20-Nov-19 Mayor Buttigieg, let me Well, the constitutional process of impeachment should be beyond politics. And it is P D, I put the same question to not a part of the campaign. But the president's conduct is. The impeachable conduct you. How central should that we have seen in the abuse of power that we're learning more about in the the president's conduct investigations -- but just to be clear, the president's already confessed to it on uncovered by the television. But that's just part of what we've seen. Under normal circumstances, a impeachment inquiry be president would leave office after something that was revealed recently that barely to a Democratic got any attention at all, which was the president had to confess in writing, in court, to nominee's campaign? illegally diverting charitable contributions that were supposed to go to veterans. We How central would it be are absolutely going to confront this president for his wrongdoing, but we're also each to yours? running to be the president who will lead this country after the Trump presidency comes to an end one way or the other. I'm running to be the president for that day the sun comes up and the Trump presidency is behind us, which will be a tender moment in the life of this country. And we are going to have to unify a nation that will be as divided as ever and, while doing it, address big issues that didn't take a vacation for the impeachment process or for the Trump presidency as a whole: a climate approaching the point of no return, the fact we've still got to act on health care, kids Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 147
learning active shooter drills before they learn to read, and an economy where even when the Dow Jones is looking good, far too many Americans have to fight like hell just to hold on to what they've got. (Interrupt)Those are the crises that will be awaiting the next president and will be at the heart of our campaign. Mayor Buttigieg, you Well, as President Obama commented recently, we are now in a different reality than P D have said, quote, "I will we were even 12 years ago. And to me, the extraordinary potential of the moment never allow us to get so we're in right now is that there is an American majority that stands ready to tackle big wrapped up in the issues that didn't exist in the same way even a few years ago. Even on issues where fighting that we start to Democrats have been on defense, like immigration and guns, we have a majority to think fighting is the do the right thing, if we can galvanize, not polarize that majority. For example, on point." The Republican health care, the reason I insist on Medicare for all who want it as the strategy to Party never stopped deliver on that goal we share of universal health care is that that is something that as a fighting President Obama governing strategy we can unify the American people around, creating a version of in his eight years in Medicare, making it available to anybody who wants it, but without the divisive step office. So what would of ordering people onto it whether they want to or not. And I believe that you do that President commanding people to accept that option, whether we wait three years, as Senator Obama didn't do to Warren has proposed, or whether you do it right out of the gate, is not the right change that? approach to unify the American people around a very, very big transformation that we now have an opportunity to deliver. Mayor Buttigieg, let's talk Because I have the right experience to take on Donald Trump. I get that it's not F D about your record as a traditional establishment Washington experience, but I would argue we need candidate. You were something very different right now. In order to defeat this president, we need elected mayor in a somebody who can go toe-to-toe who actually comes from the kinds of communities Democratic city receiving that he's been appealing to. I don't talk a big game about helping the working class just under 11,000 votes. while helicoptering between golf courses with my name on them. I don't even golf. And in your only As a matter of fact, I never thought I'd be on a Forbes magazine list, but they did one statewide race, you lost of all the candidates by wealth, and I am literally the least wealthy person on this by 25 points. Why should stage. I also wore the uniform of this country and know what is at stake in the Democrats take the risk decisions that are made in the Oval Office and in the Situation Room. And I know of betting on you? how to bring people together to get things done. I know that from the perspective of Washington, what goes on in my city might look small, but frankly, where we live, the infighting on Capitol Hill is what looks small. The usual way of doing business in Washington is what looks small. And I believe we need to send somebody in who has a different kind of experience, the experience on the ground, solving problems, working side by side with neighbors on some of the toughest issues that come up in government, recognizing what is required of executive leadership, and bringing that to Washington so that Washington can start looking a little more like our best-run communities in the heartland before the other way around starts to happen. American farmers are We shouldn't have to pay farmers to take the edge off of a trade war that shouldn't F D, I struggling under the have been started in the first place. I will support farmers, but not long ago, I was in Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 148
effects of President Boone, Iowa, a guy came up to me, he said I got my Trump bailout check, but I Trump's trade war with would have rather spent that money on conservation. By the way, this isn't even China. The Trump making farmers whole. If you're in soybeans, for example, you're getting killed. And administration's payments it's not just what this president has done with the trade war. In a lot of parts of the to farmers to offset those country, the worst thing is these so-called small refinery waivers, which are killing losses already have a those who are involved in ethanol. Look, I don't think this president cares one bit price tag that is more than about farmers. He keeps asking them to take one for the team, but more and more I'm double what was spent on talking to people in rural America who see that they're not going to benefit from the Obama business as usual under this president. I believe that so many of the solutions lie with administration's auto American farmers, but we have to stand up for them, not just with direct subsidies bailout. Mayor Buttigieg, and support, but with making sure we do something about the consolidation, the would you continue those monopolies that leave farmers with fewer places to purchase supplies from and fewer farm subsidies? places to sell their product to. And American farming should be one of the key pillars of how we combat climate change. I believe that the quest for the carbon negative farm could be as big a symbol of dealing with climate change as the electric car in this country. And it's an important part of how we make sure that we get a message out around dealing with climate change that recruits everybody to be part of the solution, including conservative communities where a lot of people have been made to feel that admitting climate science would mean acknowledging they're part of the problem.(Interrupt) Yes, but we won't need them because we're going to fix the trade war. Thank you, Senator. In We need to re-prioritize our budget as a whole and our military spending in P D President Trump's first particular. It's not just how much, although we certainly need to look at the runaway two years in office, the growth in military spending. It's also where. Right now, we are spending a fraction of Pentagon budget the attention and resources on things like the artificial intelligence research that China ballooned. Mayor is doing right now. If we fall behind on artificial intelligence, the most expensive Buttigieg, would you cut ships that the United States is building just turned into bigger targets. We do not have military spending? Or a 21st century security strategy coming from this president. After all, he's relying on would you keep it on the 17th century security technologies, like a moat full of alligators or a big wall. There is same upward trajectory? no concept of strategic planning for how civilian, diplomatic, and military security work needs to take place for the future. My response is, I completely agree. And I welcome the challenge of connecting with F R black voters in America who don't yet know me. And before I share what's in my plans, let me talk about what's in my heart and why this is so important. As mayor of a city that is racially diverse and largely low income, for eight years, I have lived and breathed the successes and struggles of a community where far too many people live with the consequences of racial inequity that has built-up over centuries but been compounded by policies and decisions from within living memory. I care about this because my faith teaches me that salvation has to do with how I make myself useful to those who have been excluded, marginalized, and cast aside and oppressed in Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 149
society. And I care about this because, while I do not have the experience of ever having been discriminated against because of the color of my skin, I do have the experience of sometimes feeling like a stranger in my own country, turning on the news and seeing my own rights come up for debate, and seeing my rights expanded by a coalition of people like me and people not at all like me, working side by side, shoulder to shoulder, making it possible for me to be standing here. Wearing this wedding ring in a way that couldn't have happened two elections ago lets me know just how deep my obligation is to help those whose rights are on the line every day, even if they are nothing like me in their experience. With that in mind, our Well, we need federal leadership to establish voting rights for the 21st century, P D, I next question comes from because this affects every other issue that we care about. Now, the House of Jenna in Maryland, who Representatives passed a pro-democracy, anti-corruption bill, which is one of many asks, what will you do at good bills to die in Mitch McConnell's hands in the United States Senate. We know the executive level to that with the White House in the right hands, we can make, for example, Election ensure that every Day a federal holiday. We can use carrots and sticks to induce states to do the right American has equal thing with automatic voter registration, same-day voter registration, making it easier access to the ballot box? for people to vote and, in particular, recognizing that we cannot allow the kind of racially motivated or partisan voter suppression or gerrymandering that often dictates the outcome of elections before the voting even begins. Right now, we have politicians picking out their voters, rather than the other way around. That compounding with what is being done to restrict the right to vote means that our democracy is not worthy of the name.(Interrupt) And while these process issues are not always fashionable, we must act to reform our democracy itself, including when it comes to choosing our presidency...(Interrupt)... like we do in every other election, giving it to the person who got the most votes. So, first of all, Washington experience is not the only experience that matters. There's P R more than 100 years of Washington experience on this stage, and where are we right now as a country? I have the experience of bringing people together to get something done. I have the experience of being commanded into a war zone by an American president. I have the experience of knowing what is at stake as the decisions made in those big white buildings come into our lives, our homes, our families, our workplaces, and our marriages. And I would submit that this is the kind of experience we need, not just to go to Washington, but to change it before it is too late. So I've got to respond to that. I know that it's par for the course in Washington to take P R, I remarks out of context, but that is outlandish even by the standards of today's politics. (Interrupt) I was talking about U.S.-Mexico cooperation. We've been doing security cooperation with Mexico for years, with law enforcement cooperation and a military relationship that could continue to be developed with training relationships, for example. Do you seriously think anybody on this stage is proposing invading Mexico? (Interrupt) I'm talking about building up -- I'm talking about building up Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 150
alliances. And if your question is about experience, let's also talk about judgment. One of the foreign leaders you mentioned meeting was Bashar al-Assad. I have in my experience, such as it is, whether you think it counts or not since it wasn't accumulated in Washington, enough judgment that I would not have sat down with a murderous dictator like that. 19-Dec-19 Mayor Buttigieg, what At the end of the day, this is beyond public opinions. This is beyond polls. This is P D, R additional argument can beyond politics. The president left the House with no choice, and I think a lot of us you make to the are watching this process, watching Washington go through the motions, and not American people? expecting much but a foregone conclusion when it gets to the Senate. We cannot give in to that sense of helplessness, because that's what they want. They want us to be taken in by that cynicism to where we give up on the process altogether. Meanwhile, their allies are laughing all the way to the bank, as we see policies that let giant corporations -- some of which made billions in profits, pay not just zero, but as we've recently learned negative taxes -- all the while they block policies that would actually boost wages for working Americans. Here's the good news: it's up to us. No matter what happens in the Senate, it is up to us in 2020. This is our chance to refuse to be taken in by the helplessness, to refuse and reject the cynicism. That is what this presidential election is about. It is what my campaign is about: our opportunity in 2020, no matter what happens in Washington, as a country, to change the course of this nation for the better. Yes. Where I live, folks aren't measuring the economy by how the Dow Jones is P R looking. They're measuring the economy by how they're doing. When you're doing the bills at the end of the month at your kitchen table, and you find that even if your wages have gone up, it's not nearly going as fast as the cost of health and housing. This economy is not working for most of us, for the middle class, and -- I know you're only ever supposed to say middle class and not poor in politics, but we've got to talk about poverty in this country. There is not one county in the United States of America where someone working full-time at the minimum wage can afford a two- bedroom apartment. In most places, not even a one-bedroom apartment. The biggest problem in our economy is simple: People are not getting paid enough. That is not the result of some mysterious cosmic force. It's the result of bad policy. And we've got to change it by raising wages and empowering workers. We‘re also being -- right now, I think we‘re being offered a false choice that you P R either have to go all the way to the extreme or it‘s business as usual. Yes, we must deliver big ideas and, yes, taxes on wealthy individuals and on corporations are going to have to go up. We can also be smart about the promises we're making, make sure they're promises that we can keep without the kind of taxation that economists tell us could hurt the economy. It's why, for example, I've proposed that we make college free for 80 percent of Americans. But it doesn't have to be free for the top. If you're in that top 10 percent, how about you pay your own tuition and we save those dollars for Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 151
something else that we could spend them on that would make a big difference, whether it's infrastructure, childcare, housing, health? On issue after issue, we've got to break out of the Washington mindset that measures the bigness of an idea by how many trillions of dollars it adds to the budget or the boldness of an idea by how many fellow Americans it can antagonize. Well, I've made clear that this will be a topic of day one action. And this is not F R, I theoretical for me. I live in one of those river cities that you're talking about. Not only that, I live right by the river. My neighborhood flooded in the second of two once in a millennium floods that we had in two years. Do the math on that. So I know what's at stake. And it's why I insist that we act with a carbon tax and dividend with massive increases in renewable research, on renewable energy, energy storage, and carbon storage. But bigger than that, we have to summon the energies of the entire country to deal with this. I've seen politicians in Washington saying the right thing about climate change as long as I've been alive, all these plans we have to get carbon neutral by 2050. And I think most or all of us have one. Their impact is multiplied by zero unless something actually gets done.(Interrupt) And that is why I want to make sure that our vision for climate includes people from the autoworker down the block from me in South Bend to a farmer a few minutes away so that they understand that we are asking, recruiting them to be part of the solution, not beating them over the head and telling them they're part of the problem. What we are seeing in the Middle East and around the world are the consequences of P R this president's failure, this president's refusal to lead. It's particularly disturbing in the case of Israel because he has infused domestic politics, making U.S. foreign policy choices in order to effectively interfere in Israeli domestic politics, acting as though that somehow makes him pro-Israel and pro-Jewish, while welcoming white nationalists into the White House. But it's not only in the Middle East that we see the consequences of the disappearance of U.S. leadership. We see among our allies and among our adversaries case after case where the world is making plans on what to do, ignoring the United States, because we're no longer considered reliable. It's not just the mockery at a cocktail party on the sidelines of a conference. It's the looks on the faces of the leaders at the U.N. as they looked at the United States president with a mixture of contempt and pity. As an American, I never again want to see the American president looked at that way by the leaders of the world. The world needs America right now. But it can't be just any America. It has to be one that is actually living up to the values that make us who we are: supporting peace, supporting democracy, supporting human rights, and supporting stability around the world. I want to turn to another I think that any tool ought to be on the table, especially diplomatic, economic, and P D part of the world, and social tools, like what you're describing. Look, for the president to let it be known that's China. Mayor that his silence, whether it's on the rounding up of Muslim Uighurs in Xinjiang, Buttigieg, you have said putting them into camps, or the aspirations of the people of Hong Kong for Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 152
that you think China democracy, for him to let China know that his silence can be purchased is trashing presents more of a American values. The reality is that there's a lot more to the relationship with China challenge than do your than who's selling more dishwashers. Yes, we need a much smarter trade policy. We fellow candidates believe. also have to acknowledge what's going on over there: the use of technology for the The U.S. clearly wants perfection of dictatorship. That is going to require a stronger than ever response from China's cooperation on the U.S. in defense of democracy. But when folks out there standing up for human rights, on climate democracy hear not a peep from the president of the United States, what message is change, on North Korea, that sending to the Chinese Communist Party? The message I will send is that if they on terrorism. And yet perpetrate a repeat of anything like Tiananmen Square, when it comes to Hong Kong, Americans are appalled they will be isolated from the free world, and we will lead that isolation by China's record on diplomatically and economically. human rights, including the detention of over a million Muslim Uighurs. Should the U.S., is my question, do more than protest and issue sanctions? Should the U.S., for example, boycott the 2022 Beijing Olympics? I'm actually not worried about the president's bad sense of humor when it comes to P R, I being made fun of. I'm worried about the fact that he is echoing the vocabulary of dictators around the world. When the American president refers to unfavorable press coverage as the product of the "enemy of the people," democracy around the world gets weaker. Freedom of the press not just here at home but around the world gets weaker. It's one more reminder of what is at stake, not just here at home, but for world history in the imperative that we win this election. (interrupt) This is our chance. Well, can't help but feel that might have been directed at me. And here is the thing. F R We're in the fight of our lives right now. Donald Trump and his allies have made it abundantly clear that they will stop at nothing, not even foreign interference to hold onto power. They've already put together more than $300 million. This is our chance. This is our only chance to defeat Donald Trump. And we shouldn't try to do it with one hand tied behind our back. The way we're going to win is to bring everybody to our side in this fight. If that means that you're a grad student digging deep to go online to peteforamerica.com and chip in $10 bucks, that's great. And if you can drop $1,000 without blinking, that's great, too. We need everybody's help in this fight. I'm not going to turn away anyone who wants to help us defeat Donald Trump. We need Democrats who've been with us all along, yes, but we also need independents worried Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 153
about the direction of the country. If you're a Republican disgusted with what's going on in your own party, we're not going to agree on everything, but we need you in this fight, and I will welcome you to our side. You know, according to Forbes magazine, I am literally the only person on this stage F R who is not a millionaire or a billionaire. So if -- this is important. This is the problem with issuing purity tests you cannot yourself pass. If I pledge -- if I pledge never to be in the company of a progressive Democratic donor, I couldn't be up here. Senator, your net worth is 100 times mine. Now, supposing that you went home feeling the holiday spirit -- I know this isn't likely, but stay with me -- and decided to go onto peteforamerica.com and gave the maximum allowable by law, $2,800, would that pollute my campaign because it came from a wealthy person? No, I would be glad to have that support. We need the support from everybody who is committed to helping us defeat Donald Trump. First of all, if you can't say no to a donor, then you have no business running for F R office in the first place. But also, Senator, your presidential campaign right now as we speak is funded in part by money you transferred, having raised it at those exact same big-ticket fundraisers you now denounce. Did it corrupt you, Senator? Of course not. So to denounce the same kind of fundraising guidelines that President Obama went by, that Speaker Pelosi goes by, that you yourself went by until not long ago, in order to build the Democratic Party and build a campaign ready for the fight of our lives, these purity tests shrink the stakes of the most important election... Mayor Buttigieg, a new Yes, and they should have a fast track to citizenship, because what the United States F D, I question to you, Mr. did under this president to them was wrong. We have a moral obligation to make Mayor. You said last right what was broken. And on the larger issue of immigration, my understanding of month that the U.S. owes this issue isn't theoretical. It's not something I formed in committee rooms in compensation to children Washington. It begins with the fact that my household, my family, came from abroad. separated from their My father immigrated to this country and became a U.S. citizen. It comes from the families at the southern fact that I'm the mayor of a city where neighborhoods that were left for dying are now border. The consensus coming back to life, largely because of the contributions mainly of Latino among child welfare immigrants. And I've seen those same neighborhoods shut down, families huddling in experts is that those church, panicking just because of the rumor of an ICE raid. That did not make our thousands of children will country safer? (Interrupt) I had to look into the eyes of an 8-year-old boy whose likely suffer lifelong father was deported, even though he had nothing so much as a traffic ticket against trauma as a result of that his name, and try to think of something to tell that boy because I couldn't tell him separation. Are you what he most wanted to hear, which is just that he was going to have his dad back. committing as president How could harming that young man possibly make America safer? (Interrupt) When I to financial compensation am president, based on those experiences, I will make sure that this is a country of for those thousands of laws and of values. And that means not only ending these unspeakable, cruel children? practices at the border, but finally and truly fixing the immigration system that has needed a full overhaul since the 1980s. (Interrupt) We cannot wait 4 years, 10 years. Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 154
We cannot wait anymore to do something about this. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I support H.R. 40, which is the bill that has been proposed in Congress to establish a P D Just to follow up… ... commission to look at reparations. But we shouldn't wait for that commission to do since you do support its work to do things that are reparative. Remember, we're not talking about a gift to compensation for those anybody. We're talking about mending what was broken. We're talking about the families, should the U.S. generational theft of the wealth of generations of African-Americans. And just also compensate crossing out a racist policy and replacing it with a neutral one is not enough to deliver descendants of enslaved equality. Harms compound, just like a dollar saved in its value compounds over time. people? Do you support So does the value of a dollars stolen. And that is why the United States must act reparations for African- immediately with investments in minority-owned businesses, with investments in Americans? health equity, with investments in HBCUs, and on the longer term look at reparations so that we can mend what has been broken. You actually did denigrate my experience, Senator, and it was before the break, and I F R. I was going to let it go, because we got bigger fish to fry here. But you implied that my... (Interrupt) You're right. And before the break, you seemed to imply that my relationship to the First Amendment was a talking point, as if anyone up here has any more or less commitment to the Constitution than anybody else up here. Let me tell you about my relationship to the First Amendment. It is part of the Constitution that I raised my right hand and swore to defend with my life. That is my experience. And it may not be the same as yours, but it counts, Senator. It counts. I got to respond to that. I got to respond to that. Senator, I know that, if you just go by F R vote totals, maybe what goes on in my city seems small to you. If you want to talk about the capacity to win, try putting together a coalition to bring you back to office with 80 percent of the vote as a gay dude in Mike Pence's Indiana. Mayor Buttigieg, your I do think that if you're in that lucky top 10 percent -- I still wish you well, don't get P D plan offers free or me wrong. I just want you to go ahead and pay your own tuition. Now, we can still discounted public college have public service loan forgiveness for those who go into lower income fields to only to families making deal with that. But if you're in that top 10 percent, I think you're going to be for the up to $150,000 a year. Do most part OK. And there is a very real choice on where every one of these tax dollars you think Senator goes. So I very much agree with Senator Warren on raising more tax revenue from Warren's plan offers free millionaires and billionaires. I just don't agree on the part about spending it on college to too many millionaires and billionaires when it comes to their college tuition. families? A follow-up to Mayor The Supreme Court is very personal for me, because my household, my marriage P D,R Buttigieg. Beyond a exists by the grace of a single vote on that body. And, yes, it is critical that we have pledge not to overturn justices who understand that American freedom includes reproductive rights and Roe v. Wade, which I reproductive freedom. But that's not all. I expect an understanding that voting rights believe all of you have are human rights. I expect an understanding that equality is required of us all. And I said would be part of your expect a level of respect for the rule of law that prevents this body from coming to be decision-making in viewed as just one more partisan battlefield, which is why I will not only appoint Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 155
choosing a nominee to the judges and justices who reflect this worldview, but also begin moving to reform the court, are there other body itself, as our country has done at least half a dozen times in its history, so that it litmus tests that you is not one more political battlefield every single time a vacancy comes up. would apply in choosing federal judges? Mayor Buttigieg, you We're going to leave one way or the other. The question is to make sure we do it well P D served in this war, but I and not poorly. And of course, that has to respond to the conditions on the ground and want to ask about your the need for a political settlement. But, you know, the other day, I was reunited with decision-making if you somebody that I'd served with over there. And the thing we were marveling at is how were elected commander- long it's been since we left. I thought I was one of the last troops turning out the lights in-chief. You have when I left years ago, and we're still there. There may need to be some kind of limited pledged to withdraw all special operations and intelligence capacity, the exact same kind of thing, by the way, U.S. troops from that we actually had in Syria holding the line before the president yanked it out, Afghanistan within your leading to the road to chaos. But what we know is that we cannot go on with these first year as president, but endless wars. And I'm glad that the name of Barbara Lee was mentioned, not only the Taliban today control because of what she's talked about years ago. I believe that we had no choice but to or contest more than half go to Afghanistan after 9/11. But right now, she is one of the leaders of the effort to the country. So should repeal and replace the authorization for the use of military force and the folks that I you as president still served with deserve that. They deserve the clarity of members of Congress being able withdraw all those U.S. to summon the courage to take an up-or-down vote on whether they ought to be there troops if the country in the first place. And when I am president, any time, if I am forced to deploy troops could once again become into war, any time we seek an authorization, it will have a three-year sunset, so that if a haven for terrorists? there really does have to be a conversation about extending it, it has to be brought to Congress, brought to the American people, and those members of Congress have to take that tough up-or-down vote. Mayor Buttigieg, ask Well, first of all, I love data and books, so I think we should all be excited about this. P D, R, I forgiveness or give a gift? And come to think of it, I should probably send my book around more, too. Look. (Interrupt) I think all of us will want the same thing at the end of the day. We know what a gift it would be to the future and to the country for literally anybody up here to become president of the United States compared to what we've got. And we've got to remember, there are I don't know how many now -- we're up to 25 something have run for president in the Democratic president. The moment we've got a nominee, the 24 who aren't that nominee are going to have to rally around the one who does. Let's make sure there's not too much to ask forgiveness for by the time that day comes. 14-Jan-20 We're going to continue Well, I bring a different perspective. There are enlisted people that I served with F D, R talking about who's best barely old enough to remember those votes on the authorization after 9/11, on the war prepared to be in Iraq. And there are people now old enough to enlist who were not alive for some of commander-in-chief. those debates. The next president is going to be confronted with national security Mayor Buttigieg challenges different in scope and in kind from anything we've seen before, not just conventional military challenges, not just stateless terrorism, but cybersecurity Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 156
challenges, climate security challenges, foreign interference in our elections. It's going to take a view to the future, as well as the readiness, to learn from the lessons of the past. And for me, those lessons of the past are personal. We can continue to remain engaged without having an endless commitment of F R,D ground troops. But what's going on right now is the president's actually sending more. The very president who said he was going to end endless war, who pretended to have been against the war in Iraq all along -- although we know that's not true -- now has more troops going to the Middle East. And whenever I see that happen, I think about the day we shipped out and the time that was set aside for saying goodbye to family members. I remember walking with a friend of mine, another lieutenant I trained with, as we walked away, and his one-and-a-half-year-old boy was toddling after him, not understanding why his father wasn't turning back to scoop him up. And it took all the strength he had not to turn around and look at his boy one more time. That is happening by the thousands right now, as we see so many more troops sent into harm's way. And my perspective is to ensure that that will never happen when there is an alternative as commander-in-chief. That authorization needs to be replaced. (Interrupt) When we lost troops in Niger, F R. I there were members of Congress who admitted they didn't even know we had troops there. And it was all pursuant to an authorization that was passed to deal with Al Qaida and 9/11. And often, Congress has been all too happy to leave aside its role. Now, thanks to Democrats in Congress, that's changing. But the reality is, year after year, Congress didn't want to touch this, either, because it was so politically difficult. Fundamental truth is, if our troops can summon the courage to go overseas into harm's way, often on deployment after deployment, then we've got to make sure that Congress has the courage to take tough up- or-down votes on whether they ought to be there. And when I am president, anytime -- which I hope will never happen -- but anytime I am compelled to use force and seek that authorization, we will have a three-year sunset, so that the American people are included...(interrupt) ... not only in the decision about whether to send troops, but whether to continue. Mayor Buttigieg, another Ensuring that Iran does not develop nuclear weapons will, of course, be a priority, P D, I critical issue you'd face as because it's such an important part of keeping America safe. But unfortunately, president is the threat of President Trump has made it much harder for the next president to achieve that goal. nuclear weapons. Last By gutting the Iran nuclear deal -- one that, by the way, the Trump administration week, President Trump itself admitted was working, certified that it was preventing progress toward a nuclear said, quote, "As long as I Iran -- by gutting that, they have made the region more dangerous and set off the am president of the chain of events that we are now dealing with as it escalates even closer to the brink of United States, Iran will outright war. Now -- yes? (Interrupt) In order to get that done, we've got to work with never be allowed to have our partners. The Iran nuclear deal, the technical term for it was the JCPOA. That a nuclear weapon." first letter "J" stood for "Joint." We can't do this alone, even less so now after Would a President everything that has happened. Which is why it will be so critically important to Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 157
Buttigieg make that same engage leaders, including a lot of new leaders emerging around the world, and ensure promise? that we have the alliances we need to meet what I believe is not just an American goal, but a widely shared goal around the world to ensure that Iran does not become a nuclear-armed country. Mayor Buttigieg, to be No. Our security depends on ensuring that Iran does not become nuclear. And by the F D clear, would you allow way, we've got a lot of other challenges with nuclear proliferation around the world. Iran to become a nuclear Despite this president's coziness with Vladimir Putin, we actually seem to be further power, yes or no? away from being able to work with Russia on things like the renewal of START. We've got to move toward less, not more nuclear danger, whether it is from states, from stateless potential terrorist actors, or anywhere else around the world. Mayor Buttigieg, do you Yes, it has been improved, it is not perfect. But when you sit down with the people P D, I support the USMCA, yes who are most impacted, they share just how much harm has been done to them by or no? things like the trade war and just how much we can benefit, American consumers and workers and farmers, by making sure we have the right kind of labor and enforceability, as Democrats ensured we got in this USMCA. But let's acknowledge why there is such fear and frustration. You know, my part of the country, in the industrial Midwest, I remember when they came around in the '90s, selling trade deals, telling us, don't worry about your slice of the pie, the pie will get so much bigger that everyone will be better off. And that promise was broken. The part about the pie getting bigger happened. It's just that the part about it getting to most people where I live did not. That is why there is such frustration, the sense that these decisions in boardrooms... (Interrupt) ... and in committee rooms in Washington are being made not based on what's best for us... (Interrupt) ... but based on their own gain. Well, that's right. This issue is personal for me. It's why we're going to tackle climate P R from day one. It's why we've got to make sure that we have better answers than we do today. Now, what I've noticed is, pretty much all of us propose that we move on from fossil fuels by the middle of the century, starting with actions that we take right now. The question is, how are we going to make sure any of this actually gets done? Because people have been saying the right things in these debates for literally decades. The other day in Winterset, there was a kid at one of my events, raised his hand and he pointed out that he expects to be here in his 90s in the year 2100. He will sit in judgment over what we do, not just what we on this stage do, anyone old enough to vote right now, whether we actually put together the national project it will require to meet our climate goals, to act aggressively, not just re-joining the Paris Climate Accord, that's table stakes, but to actually move on from the fossil- dependent economy we live in today. Mayor Buttigieg, you're Well, it's making sure that there is no such thing as an uninsured American. Look, the P D selling your plan as individual mandate was an important part of the ACA because the system doesn't Medicare for all who work if there are free riders. What I'm offering is a choice. You don't have to be in my Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 158
want it, yet your plan plan if there's another plan that you would rather keep. And there's no need to kick would automatically Americans off the plans that they want in order to deliver health care for all. And my enroll uninsured plan is paid for. Look, our party should no longer hesitate to talk about the issue of Americans into a public the debt and the deficit. Now, we've got a dramatically better track record on it than option, even if they don't Republicans do. In my lifetime, it's almost invariably Republican presidents who want it, and force them to have added to the deficit, a trillion dollars under this president. And it's why pay for it. How is that everything I've put forward -- from Medicare for all who want it to the historic truth in advertising? investments we're going to make in infrastructure to dealing with climate change -- is fully paid for. When it comes to health care, you can do it in two moves. Of course, my plan costs $1.5 trillion over a decade. No small sum. But not the $20 trillion, $30 trillion, $40 trillion that we're hearing about from the others. All you've got to do is two things, both of them are commonsense. Allow Medicare to negotiate prescription drug prices and roll back the Trump corporate tax cuts that went to corporations and the wealthy that didn't even need it. It's just not true that the plan I'm proposing is small. We've got to move past a P R, I Washington mentality that suggests that the bigness of plans only consists of how many trillions of dollars they put through the Treasury, that the boldness of a plan only consists of how many Americans it can alienate. This would be a game-changer. This would be the biggest thing we've done to American health care in a half-century. Let's measure the effects of our plans based on what they would do in our everyday lives. And, yes, we're taking on cost. On prescription drugs, we'll have an out-of- pocket cap, even if you don't get the subsidies that would make it free, a $250 monthly cap. And here's why it's got to be monthly. You ever been in that situation or known somebody who finds that they've got to defer a procedure or delay filling a prescription to try to have it happen in the right month because of when your out-of- pocket cap hits? It makes no sense medically because most of us don't experience the economy on an annual basis. Our bills don't come in every year. They come in every month. Same with our paychecks, biweekly or monthly. (Interrupt) That's why we set this up in a way to solve the problem without running up $20 trillion, $30 trillion, $40 trillion bills. Mayor Buttigieg, this is It makes no sense for childcare to cost two-thirds of somebody's income. We've to P D for you. Tiffany from drive it to 7 percent or below, and zero for those families who are living in poverty. Clive writes, as a young But this is happening to folks at every level of the income spectrum. I meet mom, I had to quit a job I professionals who sometimes say that they're working in order to be able to afford love because childcare childcare in order to be able to be working. It makes no sense, and it must change, costs were taking up two- and we shouldn't be afraid to put federal dollars into making that a reality. thirds of my income. Subsidizing childcare and making sure that we are building up a workforce of people Many families don't have who are paid at a decent level to offer early childhood education, as well as childcare the option of quitting a writ large. We can do that. And until we do, this will be one of the biggest drivers of job because that little bit the gender pay gap. Because when somebody like the voter asking the question has to Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 159
of income is needed. That step out of the workforce because of that reason, she is at a disadvantage when she leads to families using comes back in, and that can affect her pay for the rest of her career. whatever care they can find, and sometimes the results are deadly, as we've seen in Iowa over the last few years. How will you prioritize accessing quality, affordable child care in your first 100 days in office? Mayor Buttigieg -- Mayor Well, it's simple. We expect and hope for everyone to get through 12th grade. It's not P D Buttigieg, higher the same for college. Now, again, I don't want cost ever to be a barrier to somebody education is another huge seeking to attend college. And under my plan, it won't be. As a matter of fact, for the expense for families. You first 80 percent of Americans by income, it is free at public colleges. But if you're in oppose free public college that top income bracket, don't get me wrong, I still wish you well. I hope you succeed for all because you don't when you go to college. I just need you to go ahead and pay that tuition, because we want to make it, quote, could be using those dollars for something else. There is a very real choice about "free for the kids of what we do with every single taxpayer dollar that we raise, and we need to be using millionaires." But lots of that to support everybody, whether you go to college or not, making sure that public services are Americans can thrive, investing in infrastructure, and something that hasn't come up available to the kids of very much tonight but deserves a lot of attention, poverty. You know, the Poor rich people, like libraries People's Campaign is marching on Iowa right now calling on us to talk about this and public schools. Why issue more. They are driven by their faith. I think because even though in politics do you draw the line at we're supposed to talk middle class, they know there's no scripture that says as you've public colleges and done unto the middle class, so you've done unto me. We've got to be making sure that universities? we target our tax dollars where they will make the biggest difference. And I don't think subsidizing the children of millionaires and billionaires to pay absolutely zero in tuition at public colleges is the best use of those scarce taxpayer dollars. Mayor Buttigieg, you That's why we have to fight climate change with such urgency. Climate change has P D, I have talked about helping come to America from coast to coast. Seeing it in Iowa. We have seen it in historic people move from areas floods in my community. I had to activate our emergency operation center for a once- at high risk of flooding. in-a- millennium flood. Then two years later had to do the same thing. In Australia But what do you do about there are literally tornadoes made of fire taking place. This is no longer theoretical farms and factories that and this is no longer off in the future. We have got to act, yes, to adapt, to make sure simply can't be moved? communities are more resilient, to make sure our economy is ready for the consequences that are going to happen one way or the other. But we also have to ensure that we don't allow this to get any worse. And if we get right, farmers will be a huge part of the solution. We need to reach out to the very people who have Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 160
sometimes been made to feel that accepting climate science would be a defeat for them, whether we're talking about farmers or industrial workers in my community, and make clear that we need to enlist them...(Interrupt) ... in the national project to do something about it. But, Mayor We are going to have to use federal funds to make sure that we are supporting those N D Buttigieg…(Interrupt) ... whose lives will inevitably be impacted further by the increased severity and the to clarify, what do you do increased frequency. And by the way, that is happening to farms, that is happening to about farms and factories factories, and that disproportionately happens to black and brown Americans, which that cannot be relocated? is why equity and environmental justice have to be at the core of our climate plan going forward. Mayor Buttigieg, you say The black voters who know me best are supporting me. It's why I have the most P D you've had trouble support in South Bend. It's why, among elected black officials in my community who earning the support of have gotten into this race, by far most of them are supporting me. And now, black voters because nationally, I am proud that my campaign is co-chaired by a member of the you're unknown. But Congressional Black Caucus, and to have support right here in Iowa from some of the you've been campaigning most recognizable black elected leaders, from Mayor Hart of Waterloo to former for a year now and Representative Berry in Black Hawk County. Now, the biggest mistake we could polling shows you with make is to take black votes for granted. And I never will. The reason I have the next to no black support, support I do is not because any voter thinks that I'm perfect. It's because of the work support that you'll need in that we have done facing some of the toughest issues that communities can, not from order to beat Donald the luxury of -- of a debate or a television panel or a committee room but on the Trump. Is it possible that ground, issues from poverty to justice in policing. And I'm proud to say we have been black voters have gotten nationally recognized for our work as a race-informed city on delivering greater to know you and have economic justice, that we have reduced use of force by leading the region in simply decided to choose transparency around the use of force in policing. Of course there is a much longer another candidate? way to go, in my community and around the country. But I will be a president whose personal commitment is to continue doing this work. You demoted me. I was actually an associate, but that's OK. It was not the biggest P R, I part of my career. But I am ready to take on this president on the economy because I am from the exact kind of industrial Midwestern community that he pretends to speak to and has proven to turn his back on, and guided that community through a historic transformation. When, at the beginning of the decade, I took office, we were described as a dying city. I'm ready to take on Donald Trump because, when he gets to the tough talk and the chest-thumping, he'll have to stand next to an American war veteran and explain how he pretended bone spurs made him ineligible to serve. And if -- and if he keeps trying...... to use religion... If a guy like Donald Trump keeps trying to use religion to somehow recruit Christianity into the GOP, I will be standing there not afraid to talk about a different way to answer the call of faith and insist that God does not belong to a political party. I am ready to take on this president... (Interrupt) ... on everything. Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 161
7-Feb-20 Mayor Buttigieg, early in I‘m not interested in the labels. I‘m not interested in what Republicans are going to P D,R the campaign you said say. I‘m interested in the style of politics that we need to put forward to actually, that the word socialism finally turn the page. In order to win, yes, but also in order to govern. This is a has lost its power, it‘s moment where the next president is going to face challenges the likes of which we mostly lost its meaning. hadn‘t even thought of a few years or decades ago. And politically, we‘re facing a Do you believe that or fundamentally new problem with President Donald Trump. So the biggest risk we worry it could be a potent could take at a time like this would be to go up against that fundamentally new weapon in a general challenge by trying to fall back on the familiar. Or trying to unite this country at a election? moment when we need that kind of unification, when our nominee is dividing people with a politics that says, if you don‘t go all the way to the edge, it doesn‘t count. A politics that says, it‘s my way or the highway. Are you talking about Yes. Because we‘ve got to bring as many people as we can into this process. Look, all F D Senator Sanders? of us have been saying that we can build the majority that it‘s going to take in order to win. But the process of actually proving it is now underway. And now it comes to New Hampshire, a state that thinks for itself, is not going to be told what to do by anyone and that has a very independent streak that is going to respond to those who are reaching out in a politics of addition and inclusion and belonging. Not one that beats people over the head and says they shouldn‘t even be on their side if we don‘t agree 100% of the time. Mayor Buttigieg, you just I think there‘s a better way. It‘s true, the American people are ready. There‘s a P D heard Senator Sanders historic majority right now, even broader than what was available to President Obama make healthcare the a decade ago. There is now a majority ready to act to make sure there is no such thing center of his piece. Do as an uninsured American and no such thing as an unaffordable prescription. Just so you think his healthcare long as we don‘t command people to accept a public plan if they don‘t want to. That‘s plan can bring people the idea of Medicare for All Who Want It. My point is, what I am offering is together? campaigning for all of these things that America wants. Yes, higher wages, doubling the rate of unionization in this country, making corporations and the wealthy pay their fair share, delivering healthcare and college affordability. But also offering a way to do these game changing transformations that will actually galvanize and energize, not polarize the American people. That is not only what we need in order to win, it‘s what we need in order to govern and actually get these things done. Sure. Well, first of all, just to be clear, the truth is that I have been consistent P R throughout in my position on delivering healthcare for every American. And as to experience, I just bring a different perspective. Look, I freely admit that if you‘re looking for the person with the most years of Washington establishment experience under their belt, you‘ve got your candidate, and of course it‘s not me. The perspective I‘m bringing is that of somebody whose life has been shaped by the decisions that are made in those big white buildings in Washington, D.C. Somebody who has guided a community written off as dying just a decade ago through historic transformation. Somebody who knows what it means to be sent to war on orders that come out of the Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 162
Situation Room. We need a perspective right now that will finally allow us to leave the politics of the past in the past. Turn the page and bring change to Washington before it‘s too late. Those achievements were phenomenally important, because they met the moment, F R but now we have to meet this moment. And this moment is different. The next president is going to face challenges from global health security, like what we‘re seeing coming out of China, to cybersecurity, and election security challenges that were barely thought of a few years ago. And here at home, we‘re seeing things like gig work, transform what it means to be a worker in America, in ways that were barely conceived of not that long ago. We cannot solve the problems before us by looking back. We have to be ready to turn the page, and change our politics before it‘s too late. And I‘m seeing everywhere I go, not just fellow Democrats, but a striking number of independents, and, what I like to call future former Republicans ready to join in that historic American majority to turn the page. Here‘s how we‘re going to win. We‘re going to force this president to stand on that F R debate stage, next to somebody who actually lives in a middle class neighborhood, in the industrial Midwest, in the exact kind of community that he pretends to speak for, but turns his back on. We‘re going to put up somebody who‘s not afraid to call out things like his disgraceful behavior at the national prayer breakfast, and remind Americans that od does not belong to a political party. We‘re going to win by having somebody up there who can call him to account for his refusal to serve when it was his turn, and remind him what serving this country is really about. If we want to beat this president, we‘ve got to be ready to move on from the playbook that we have relied on in the past, and unify this country around a new and better vision. That‘s how we‘re going to win. And when I talk about exhaustion, this is important, because I got to tell you, the American people, from outside of Washington, we feel a sense of exhaustion watching the division, and the dysfunction there. And that is not to take anything away from the very good work that you and our other democratic members of Congress, and the Senate are doing. It‘s not. But, the reason I raise that sense of exhaustion is I see it. I see that temptation to walk away from it all among so many people that I‘ve spoken to in communities from Claremont to Manchester, and in the other states that we‘re in. And the important thing for the American people to remember, is this is 2020, it‘s an election year. And if the Senate was the jury before, you are the jury now. The American people are the jury that will have the final verdict on this president, and on the senators in the GOP who protected him. Impeachment is of course No, and we‘re not going to let them change the subject. This is not about Hunter F D over. But Republicans in Biden, or vice president Biden, or any Biden. This is about an abuse of power by the Congress have already president. The vice president and I and all of us are competing. But we‘ve got to draw started investigating vice a line here. And to be the kind of president, to be the kind of human being who would president Biden‘s son, seek to turn someone against his own son, who would seek to weaponize a son Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 163
Hunter. Mayor Buttigieg, against his own father, is an unbelievably dishonorable thing, that is just one more do you think that there‘s a example of why we as a party have to be completely united in doing whatever it takes danger for the democratic at the end of the day to make sure that this president does not get a second term. party to nominate a candidate who is still under the threat of investigation? Mayor Buttigieg, you‘re In the situation that we saw with President Trump‘s decision, there is no evidence that P D the only veteran standing that made our country safer. Look, I feel very strongly about the campaign of murder on this stage and while and mayhem that eneral Soleimani and his units have perpetrated. It‘s also the case there is still debate about that if we learned nothing else from the war in Iraq, it‘s that taking out a bad guy is whether or not there was not a good idea if you do not know what you were doing. This president has moved an imminent threat, there us this much closer to the brink of war, but it didn‘t start with the Soleimani strike. It is no debate about started with withdrawing us from the Iran nuclear deal that his own administration whether or not Soleimani certified was working. And it‘s time for us to recognize that every time a step is taken was a bad actor who was that moves us to the brink of war, that has incredibly serious consequences for those responsible for the deaths who serve. By chance, just because I was traveling for the campaign, not long ago, I of many Americans. ran into somebody that I hadn‘t seen since we were both serving, hadn‘t seen since Given what you know she was injured in an insider attack. And I saw her coming down the concourse in the about Soleimani, if your airport wearing a Wounded Warrior Project tee shirt that said, ―Some assembly national security team required.‖ And when I asked her how she was doing, she up her knee and tapped on came to you with an the part of her leg that they couldn‘t save, tapped on the prosthetic and said the Navy opportunity to strike, had fixed her up just fine and then let me know that she was looking forward to an would Soleimani have upcoming deployment. The people in our uniform will do whatever the United States been dead or would he requires of them. What they deserve in return is a president who will actually read the still be alive under your intelligence, pay attention to the international security situation, consult with our presidency? allies, keep US politics out of it, and never commit our troops to a situation where they would have to go into harm‘s way if there is an alternative. Mayor Buttigieg, let me It depends on the circumstances. It depends if there was an alternative and it depends P D just press further on this what the different effects would be. That‘s my point. This is not an episode of 24. though, because president This is a situation that requires that you actually evaluate the entire intelligence Trump has signal in a picture. This president has insulted the intelligence community, but they put their general election lives on the line to gather the information that will help a decision maker evaluate campaign, he will whether or not something like that is justified. And I don‘t think he even reads it. And celebrate his willingness here we have a situation where the world, that one of the most volatile places in the to order that strike. I‘m world has just become more dangerous at the hands of a president who has no regard asking if your national for the military, not only punishing a war hero today with what he did to Colonel security team came to you Vindman, but pardoning war criminals in a way that undermines the entire sense of and presented you with good order and discipline and military honor. We deserve a better commander-in- the opportunity, would chief. Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 164
you take the strike? You mentioned Mayor I believe that I have the judgment to help us get through these situations where P D Buttigieg. And I do want obviously the vice president made the wrong decision when it came to such an to take this to you next, important moment in our foreign policy. And looking forward, we got to recognize mayor. Given your finish just how much is going to be on the plate of the next president that is different in kind in Iowa, you‘ve come from what we have faced before. It‘s not just about dealing with the aftermath of the under increasing scrutiny, war in Iraq, it‘s about preventing a war with Iran. And not only do we have to attacks from opponents undertake the military and counter terrorism activities that we‘ve been doing on experience. We‘ve throughout, the next president is going to have to restore the credibility of this heard that theme even country among our allies and among the international community. At a moment when right here tonight. You we are facing fundamentally different challenges from asymmetric warfare to have said on the Iraq cybersecurity threats, in President Trump‘s imagination of a national security strategy War, for example. ―I just is a big wall and a moat full of alligators. It‘s a 7th century approach to keeping a don‘t believe there is any place safe. What we have to do is be ready for the future and that means insisting not justification for that only on shoring up our relationships, but defining a strategy to keep the American vote.‖ You said, ―It‘s the people safe from fundamentally new challenges. difference between tenure and judgment.‖ That it‘s the judgment that matters, not the time in Washington. Vice President Biden, as you know, voted yes. As commander-in-chief, do you believe your judgment would be better than the vice president‘s? Mayor Buttigieg, you No. What I‘ve called for is that incarceration should no longer be the response to drug F D have described yourself possession. as a moderate, but one of your policies at least goes further than some on the stage with you are willing to go. You have called for the decriminalization of all drugs. Does that include heroin, meth, and cocaine, some of the drugs that have contributed to this crisis? Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 165
With all due respect Again, what I‘m calling for is that we end the use of incarceration as a response. This F D Mayor Buttigieg, on your does not mean that it will be lawful to produce or distribute those kinds of harmful website it says that you drugs, but also as we know from the opioid crisis, some of this has been driven by called for companies that were acting irresponsibly with substances that were lawful. It‘s why decriminalization of all in South Bend we sued those companies to hold them accountable. We‘ve got to drugs. make sure that there is accountability for those who suppressed evidence about the addictiveness of those substances. Even while we‘re also coming to recognize that these kinds of addiction are a medical issue, not a moral failure on the part of somebody battling that addiction. That‘s why medication assisted treatment is so important. And those people who are being revived, and our own EMTs in my city had been so frustrated by the experience of reviving somebody, but then they have nowhere to go. Sometimes you get brought back with a dose of Narcan, but then your life depends on whether in the days that follow you make it until somebody can actually see you, because we have such a shortage of mental health and addiction providers in this country. We must act to change that and save lives when we do. Mayor Buttigieg, you Well, if all we did was change the number of justices than I agree with her that that F D have signaled that you‘d could be the consequence. What I‘ve called for is not only reforming the number of be open to the idea of justices on the bench, but structural reform so that some of the justices are not expanding the Court. appointed through a partisan process. We cannot allow the Supreme Court to continue Justice Ruth Bader to become one more political battlefield as we are seeing today. And the time has Ginsburg suggested come for us to think bigger, not just reforming the makeup of the court as America, leaving the Court as it is, by the way, has done several times in our history. But also remember that the saying quote, ―Nine founders gave us the power to amend the Constitution for a reason and we shouldn‘t seems to be a good be afraid to use it. It‘s not something you do lightly or quickly, but when it comes to number.‖ And in fact she something like Citizens United, which holds that corporations have the same political said if the number of soul as people and that spending money to influence an election is the same thing as justices is increased writing an op-ed to your local paper, we need a Constitutional amendment to clear quote, ―It would make the that up and protect our democracy. Court appear partisan. It would be one side saying, ‗When we‘re in power, we‘re going to enlarge the number of judges to have more people who will vote the way we want them to.'‖ Is Justice Ginsburg wrong? Mayor Buttigieg, under Well, the reality is, on my watch, drug arrests in South Bend were lower than the N D your leadership as mayor, national average, and specifically to marijuana, lower than in Indiana. But there is no a black resident in South question that systemic racism has penetrated to every level of our system, and my city Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 166
Bend, Indiana was four was not immune. I took a lot of heat for discussing systemic racism with my own times more likely to be police department, but we‘ve got to confront the fact that there is no escaping how arrested for marijuana this is part of all of our policies. Earlier, we were talking about opioids, and possession than a white thankfully, America has come to a better understanding about the fact that opioid resident. Now, that racial addiction is best understood as a medical problem. But there were a lot of people, disparity is higher than including a lot of African American activists in my community who have made the the rest of the state, in very good point, it‘s great that everybody‘s so enlightened about drug policy now fact, it‘s higher than the when it comes to opioids, but where were you when it came to marijuana, where were rest of the nation, and that you when it came to the crack epidemic in the 1990s? That is one of the reasons why disparity increased in I am calling for us as a country to take up those reforms that end incarceration as a South Bend after you response to possession and make sure that we legalize marijuana and when we do it, took office. When talking do it retroactively with expungements to correct the harm done in so many cases of about the problem on incarceration, disproportionately of black and brown Americans where the national terms, you‘ve incarceration did far more harm than the offense it was intended to deal with. called it ―evidence of systemic racism.‖ You were mayor for eight years, so weren‘t you, in effect, the head of the system, and how do explain that increase in black arrests under your leadership? Right, let me go back to And again, the overall rate was lower than the national rate. N D the original question though. How do you explain the increase in black arrests in South Bend under your leadership for marijuana possession? No, there was an increase. And one of the strategies that our community adopted was to target, when there were N D The year before you were cases where there was gun violence and gang violence, which was slaughtering so in office, it was lower. many in our community, burying teenagers, disproportionately black teenagers, we Once you became in adopted a strategy that said that drug enforcement would be targeted in cases where office in 2012, that there was a connection to the most violent group or gang connected to a murder. number went up. In 2018, These things are all connected, but that‘s the point. So are all of the things that need the last number year that to change in order for us to prevent violence and remove the effects of systemic we have record for, that racism, not just from criminal justice, but from our economy, from health, from number was still up. housing, and from our democracy itself. Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 167
We are going into the fight of our lives. Donald Trump, according to news reports, F R and his allies raised $25 million today. We need to go into that fight with everything that we‘ve got. Now I‘ve been very clear on both my record, where I have sued pharmaceutical companies, and what I‘m campaigning for, that includes raising wages and raising taxes on corporations and the wealthy. And as the only person on this stage who is not a millionaire or a billionaire, I know a thing or two about building a movement because mayor of South Bend, Indiana is not exactly an establishment fundraising powerhouse. We are here without the involvement of any corporate PACs because hundreds of thousands of people went to, yes, peteforamerica.com, contributed to this campaign, and let me say something else. If we want to bring about any of the changes that everyone is talking about so elegantly up here, we need to put together the majority that can decisively defeat Donald Trump. And in order to do that, we need a politics that is defined not by who we reject, but how we bring everybody into the fold. And if you are low-income, or if you‘re able to contribute a lot. If you‘ve always voted Democrat, or if you‘re an Independent or even a Republican who‘s just sick of looking your kids in the eye and trying to explain this White House, we need you to join us right now. I will not pursue politics by telling people they can‘t be at our side if they‘re not with us 00% of the time. This is a time for addition, not rejection, for belonging, not exclusion. Cokie loved the New The problem is, America‘s been counting the wrong things. Now we have a president P D, R Hampshire primary, and who says the economy is fantastic because the Dow Jones is looking good. I‘m sure if she asked the candidates you‘ve got a building with your name on it close to Wall Street, then that really is the in this Republican debate, same thing as the economy to you. But the problem is, we‘ve had an economy grow how will we overcome and not be able to lift up those most in need, or even so many in the middle. When the scandal of one quarter I‘m president, we‘re going to measure the performance of our economy, not by the of American preschoolers Dow Jones but by the income growth of the 90%, because a good economy is one living in poverty in the where children are being lifted out of poverty. Just as we focused in South B on richest nation on earth? cutting the poverty rate, in particular, the black poverty rate and making sure families Today, nearly one in five with children were participating in the growth that we did have. This is one more American preschoolers example of something where the American people want to see change. The American are still living below the people, not just die hard Democrats, but so many Independents and some poverty line, even though Republicans, think we need to prioritize economic equity and yet it still doesn‘t we‘ve had 10 straight happen. That is why we need to recognize that the time has arrived for a different years of economic kind of politics. To turn the page, leave the politics of the past in the past and deliver growth. What does that a better future before it is too late. say to you about where America is today and what we need to do about it? 19-Feb-20 Yes, we've got to wake up as a party. We could wake up two weeks from today, the P R Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 168
day after Super Tuesday, and the only candidates left standing will be Bernie Sanders and Mike Bloomberg, the two most polarizing figures on this stage. And most Americans don't see where they fit if they've got to choose between a socialist who thinks that capitalism is the root of all evil and a billionaire who thinks that money ought to be the root of all power. Let's put forward somebody who actually lives and works in a middle-class neighborhood, in an industrial Midwestern city. Let's put forward somebody who's actually a Democrat. Look... We shouldn't have to choose between one candidate who wants to burn this party down and another candidate who wants to buy this party out. We can do better. All right, look, first of all -- look, my campaign is fueled by hundreds of thousands of F R, I contributors. (Interrupt) Among the hundreds of thousands of contributors. And, look, we've got to unite this country to deal with these issues. You're not the only one who cares about the working class. Most Americans believe we need to empower workers. As a matter of fact, you're the one who is at war with the Culinary Union right here in Las Vegas. We can solve these issues... (Interrupt) Yeah, but the vision I'm putting forward has the support of the American people. We can actually deliver health care without taking it away from anyone. We can actually empower workers and lift wages without further polarizing this country. And we can build a movement without having legions of our supporters online and in person attacking Democratic figures and union leaders alike. Senator, when you say that you disown these attacks and you didn't personally direct P R, I them, I believe you.(Interrupt) But at a -- but at a certain point, you got to ask yourself, why did this pattern arise? Why is it especially the case among your supporters that this happens? (Interrupt) That's just not true. Look, people know the way your supporters treat them. But leadership is about what you draw out of people. It's what -- it's about how you F R inspire people to act. And right now, we're in this toxic political environment. Leadership isn't just about policy. I think at least in broad terms, we're largely pulling in the same direction on policy, but leadership is also about how you motivate people to treat other people. I think you have to accept some responsibility and ask yourself what it is about your campaign in particular that seems to be motivating this behavior more than others, because in order to turn the page on the Trump era, we're going to need a president, not just a candidate who can win, but a president who can move us forward. I'm more of a Microsoft Word guy. And if you look at my plan, I don't know if there P R are any PowerPoints on it, but you can definitely find the document on peteforamerica.com. And you'll see that it is a plan that solves the problem, makes sure there is no such thing as an uninsured American, and does it without kicking anybody off the plan that they have. This idea that the union members don't know what's good for them is the exact kind of condescension and arrogance that makes Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 169
people skeptical of the policies we've been putting forward. Here we have a plan that the majority of Americans support. Do you realize how historic that is? That the American people are ready in a way far beyond what was true even 10 years ago and what was available to President Obama at the time. There's a powerful American majority ready to undertake the biggest, most progressive reform we've had in health care in 50 years, just so long as we don't force it on anybody. What is wrong with that? Mayor Buttigieg, you've No, it's not, because, first of all, let me say, we're all delighted that you are in fighting F D, I been critical about shape. (Interrupt) And at the same time, transparency matters, especially living transparency on this stage through the Trump era. Now, under President Obama, the standard was that the and people needing to do president would release full medical records, do a physical, and release the readout. I better. Is that response think that's the standard that we should hold ourselves to, as well. Now, President from Senator Sanders Trump lowered that standard. He said just a letter from a doctor is enough. And a lot enough for you? of folks on this stage are now saying that's enough. But I am certainly prepared to get a physical, put out the results. I think everybody here should be willing to do the same. But I'm actually less concerned about the lack of transparency on Sanders' personal health than I am about the lack of transparency on how to pay for his health care plan, since he's said that it's impossible to even know how much it's going to cost, and even after raising taxes on everybody making $29,000, there is still a multi- trillion-dollar hole. As a matter of fact, if you add up all his policies altogether, they come to $50 trillion. He's only explained $25 trillion worth of revenue, which means that the hole in there is bigger than the size of the entire economy of the United States. The time has come to level with the American people on matters personal and on matters of policy. This is really important. (Interrupt) He said my plan is the status quo, and that's false. N R, I Look, if my plan is the status quo, why was it attacked by the insurance industry the moment it came out? And on issue after issue after issue, this is what Senator Sanders is saying. If you're not with him, if you're not all the way on his side, then you must be for the status quo. Well, you know what? That is a picture that leaves most of the American people out. Yeah, I wouldn't liken this to trivia. I actually didn't know how many members were N R, I in the Knesset, so you got me there.(Interrupt) But you're staking your candidacy on your Washington experience. You're on the committee that oversees border security. You're on the committee that does trade. You're literally in part of the committee that's overseeing these things and were not able to speak to literally the first thing about the politics of the country to our south.(Interrupt) I'm saying you shouldn't trivialize that knowledge. This is a race for president. This is a race for president. If winning a race for Senate in P R Minnesota translated directly to becoming president, I would have grown up under the presidency of Walter Mondale. This is different. And the reason that I think we Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 170
need to talk about Washington experience is that we should ask what that experience has led to. Experience and certainly tenure is not always the same thing as judgment. If we're going to talk about votes in the Senate in Washington, let's talk about it. Let's be real about the deadline. It's not 2050, it's not 2040, it's not 2030. It's 2020. P R, I Because if we don't elect a president who actually believes in climate science now, we will never meet any of the other scientific or policy deadlines that we need to. So first of all, let's make sure we're actually positioned to win, which, once again, if we put forward two of the most polarizing figures on this stage as the only option, it's going to be a real struggle. Now, I've got a plan to get us carbon neutral by 2050. And I think everybody up here has a plan that more or less does the same. So the real question is, how are we going to actually get it done? We need leadership to make this a national project that breaks down the partisan and political tug of war that prevents anything from getting done. How do you do it? Well, first of all, making sure that those jobs are available quickly. Secondly, ensuring that we are pulling in those very sectors who have been made to feel like they're part of the problem, from farming to industry, and fund as well as urge them to do the right thing. And then global climate diplomacy. I'm a little skeptical of the idea that convincing is going to do the trick when it comes to working with China. America has repeatedly overestimated our ability to shape Chinese ambitions. But what we can do is ensure that we use the hard tools...(Interrupt) ... to enforce what has to happen... Mayor Buttigieg, will Not if they are small businesses. I mean, what we've got to do is level the playing P D,R taxes on those businesses field, where a company like Amazon or Chevron is paying literally zero on billions of go up under you? dollars in profits and it puts small businesses, like the ones that are revitalizing my own city, often Latino-owned on our west side, at a disadvantage. We need to recognize that investing in Latino entrepreneurship is not just an investment in the Latino community, it is an investment in the future of America. And it is time for a president who understands the value of immigration in lifting up all of our communities and our country. We're getting the exact opposite message from the current president. And it is time to recognize not just the diversity of the Latino community, but the importance of issues like economic empowerment, like health care, as well as immigration. Mayor Buttigieg, Senator I think that employee ownership of companies is a great idea. I'm not sure it makes P D Sanders has a proposal sense to command those companies to do it. If we really want to deliver less that will require all large inequality in this country, then we've got to start with the tax code and we've got to companies to turn over up start with investments in how people are able to live the American dream, which is in to 20 percent of their serious, serious decline. As a matter of fact, last time I checked, the list of countries ownership to employees to live out the American dream, in other words, to be born at the bottom and come out over time. Is that a good at the top, we're not even in the top ten. Number one place to live out the American idea? dream right now is Denmark. And as the, I think, lone person on this stage who's not a millionaire, let alone a billionaire, I believe that part of what needs to change is for Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 171
the voices of the communities that haven't felt heard on Wall Street or in Washington to actually be brought to Capitol Hill. It's why I am building a politics designed around inclusion, designed around belonging, because the one thing that will definitely perpetuate the income inequality we're living with right now is for Donald Trump to be re-elected, because we polarized this country with the wrong nominee. Mayor Buttigieg, I want No. Look, it's true that I was into Bernie before it was cool. (Interrupt) He was a P D, I, R to get you in on this, congressman at the time. And the qualities I admired then are qualities I still respect a because, you know, in great deal. I never said that I agree with every part of his policy views, then or now. 2000, you wrote an But I appreciate that at least he's straightforward and honest about them. He's honest award-winning essay. about the fact that taxes will go up on anybody making more than $29,000 to fund his You praised Senator health care plan, although, again, a little bit vague about how the rest of that Sanders. You specifically gets...(Interrupt) But you're still raising those taxes. And when you do it...(Interrupt) praised him for But where is -- where is the other $25 trillion supposed to come from? At a certain embracing socialism. You point, you've got to do the math.(Interrupt) Well, no, but even after the payroll tax, have now since said that you still have a hole. you are concerned about his policies. But I am curious about this. Are you out of touch with your own generation, millennials by a big chunk embrace his version of democratic socialism, you do not. Are you out of touch with your generation? Mayor Buttigieg, to you. Oh, I think he should absolutely be doing everything in his power to defeat Donald P D In 2018, Mayor Trump. I just don't think that has to result in him becoming the president of the Bloomberg was the United States. Look, our party has values. We were built around values like making biggest outside spender sure we protect working people. But Mayor Bloomberg opposed raising the minimum helping Democrats wage. Our party has a tradition that includes excellent presidents like Barack Obama, running for Congress. who Mayor Bloomberg opposed. At the end of the day, it's not just about how much He's also donated billions money you've got. It's what you stand for. And we are living in a moment when toward causes like Americans are so deeply frustrated with the way that both Wall Street and climate change, gun Washington seem to have overlooked our lives. The view from the porch of my one safety, education. If his house in Indiana...... is that they can't even see us sometimes. And if we're going into money wasn't a problem the election of our lives against a president who rose to power by cynically exploiting then, why is it a problem the frustration of ordinary Americans feeling like leaders weren't speaking to them, now? then I think that turning to someone like Mayor Bloomberg, who thinks he can buy this election, is no better a way to succeed than turning to somebody like Senator Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 172
Sanders who wants to burn the house down. If you're going to run based on your record of voting in Washington, then you have to P R,A own those votes, especially when it comes to immigration. You voted to confirm the head of Customs and Border Protection under Trump, who is one of the architects of the family separation policy. You voted to make English the national language. Do you know the message that sends in as multilingual a state as Nevada to immigrants? You have been unusual among Democrats, I think the Democrat among all of the senators running for president most likely to vote for Donald Trump's judges, who we know are especially hostile to Dreamers and to the rights of immigrants. Now, in South Bend, it was not always easy to stand up in a conservative place like Indiana on immigration. But we delivered. We created a municipal ID program so that Dreamers and others who were undocumented were able to navigate everyday life. We stood up for those rights and stood with members of our community with the message that they were as American as we are. (speaking Spanish) I'm stating the facts, because these are votes that you took, and those votes set you N R, I, A alone among the Democrats running for president.(Interrupt) No other -- is it true or is it false that no other Democrat from the Senate running for president voted that way?(Interrupt) Well, I would say anybody who ran for president this cycle, Senator Harris, Senator Booker saw through this. You know, maybe leading a diverse city that was facing ruin doesn't sound like the F R arena to you. I'm used to senators telling mayors that senators are more important than mayors, but this is the arena, too. You don't have to be in Washington to matter. You don't have to be on Capitol Hill for your work to be significant. Yes or no, leading person Not necessarily. Not until there's a majority. P D, R with the delegates, should they be the nominee or not? 25-Feb-20 Why would the Russians I will tell you what the Russians want. They don't have a political party. They want F D want to be working on chaos. And chaos is what is coming our way. I mean, look, if you think the last four behalf of Bernie Sanders? years has been chaotic, divisive, toxic, exhausting, imagine spending the better part of 2020 with Bernie Sanders vs. Donald Trump. Think about what that will be like for this country. And, meanwhile, folks at home, from South Carolina to South Bend, are trying to figure out what any of this means for us, because it's right that there is a progressive majority, an American majority that wants to see real change, wants to see wages go up, and go up faster than the cost of health and saving for retirement. But, also, there's a majority of the American people who I think right now just want to be able to turn on the TV, see their president, and actually feel their blood pressure go down a little bit, instead of up through the roof. We have an opportunity to set a different tone. Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 173
All right, let's clear this up once and for all. (Interrupt) You've got people believing F R, I something that is false. This needs to be cleared up. (Interrupt) I can't allow -- I can't allow this to stand because it's just not true. Senator Sanders…(Interrupt)... has got people believing something that is untrue about my campaign. The idea that most of my campaign is funded by billionaires... (Interrupt) Fifty people, all right. In Charleston alone, just in Charleston, over 2,000 people have contributed to my campaign. That means the dollars that have come to my campaign, just from Charleston, is more than the dollars that have come from the 50 people that you mentioned. Grassroots contributions are the life blood of my campaign. In fact, I shouldn't miss the opportunity, if you're watching right now and you support my campaign, go to peteforamerica.com, and chip in. And if you are watching right now, and you're a billionaire, I will raise your taxes. But if you'd like to defeat Donald Trump, please go to peteforamerica.com and donate legal maximum of $2,800, if you're a billionaire. Mayor Buttigieg, mayor Yes, in effect, it was. Because it was about profiling people based on their race. And F D, I to mayor, mayor to the mayor even said that they disproportionately stopped white people too often and mayor, you've certainly minorities too little. And I'm not here to score points. I come at this with a great deal had your issues with the of humility, because we have had a lot of issues, especially when it comes to racial black community as well. justice and policing in my own community. And I come to this with some humility Do you think the New because I'm conscious of the fact that there are seven white people on this stage York City's talking about racial justice. None of us -- none of us have the experience, the lived implementation of stop experience of, for example, walking down the street, or in a mall, and feeling eyes on and frisk was racist? us, regarding us as dangerous, without knowing the first thing about us just because the color of our skin. None of us had the experience that black women have had that drives that maternal mortality gap that we are all rightly horrified by, of going into a doctor, and being less likely to have your description of being in pain believed because of your race. Since we don't have the experience, the next best thing we can do...(Interrupt)... is actually listen to those who do. I think we're talking about math.(Interrupt) Let's talk about it. (Interrupt) I think we N R, I, A were talking about math, and it doesn't take two hours to do the math.(Interrupt)Because let's talk about what it adds up to. (Interrupt) Let's talk about math, indeed. OK, so here's the math...(Interrupt) No, here's the math.(Interrupt)To do nothing is what will happen... So let's do this math. Senator Sanders at one point said it was going to be $40 trillion, P R, I, A then it was $30 trillion, then it was $17 trillion. That's an incredible shrinking price tag. At some point, has said it is unknowable to even see what the price tag would be. Now there are new numbers. I'll tell you exactly what it adds up to. It adds to four more years of Donald Trump, Kevin McCarthy as speaker of the House, and the inability to get the Senate into Democratic hands. The time has come for us to stop acting like the presidency is the only office that matters. Not only is this a way to get Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 174
Donald Trump reelected. We got a House to worry about. We got a Senate to worry about. And this is -- this is really important. Look...(Interrupt) ... if you want to keep the House in Democratic hands, you might want to check with the people who actually turned the House blue, 40 Democrats, who are not running on your platform. They are running away from your platform as fast as they possibly can. I want to send those Democrats back to the United States House.(Interrupt) Let's listen to them...(Interrupt) ... when they say that they don't want to be out there defending Senator Sanders... I'm definitely on board with the part about sending up somebody from the middle of P R the country. But I want to come back to this question about the filibuster because this is not some long-ago bad vote that Bernie Sanders took, this is a current bad position that Bernie Sanders holds. And we're in South Carolina. How are we going to deliver a revolution if you won't even support a rule change? We are in this state... We are in the state where Strom Thurmond used the filibuster to block civil rights legislation repeatedly. No less a Senate traditional figure than Harry Reid has called for it to go. It has got to go, because otherwise Washington will not deliver. I was in high school when the Columbine shooting happened. And I remember everybody in Washington saying, never again, we'll never let this happen again. And then a second school shooting generation has now been produced. Shame on us if we allow there to be a third. And also...... in terms of making the case, I think it wouldn't be a bad idea for somebody to illustrate, from the perspective of the a veteran, why the kinds of weaponry, anything remotely like what I trained on in order to go serve in a war zone has no business being sold anywhere near an American school or church or neighbor. Look, the best thing that we can do to support public education is to support public F R, I educators. I'm a little biased, because I'm married to one. And I get an education about education every day I come home. I have seen how teachers are expected to dip into their own pockets to furnish their classrooms. Teachers are being expected to handle the mental health challenges that their students are facing because we don't have an adequate mental health system to support kids. And now some politicians, because they aren't willing to face the need for commonsense gun law, are expecting teachers to somehow transform themselves into highly trained armed guards when there's a threat to a classroom. We have to show not only with compensation, but with support for the profession overall our regard for those who are educating our kids. And, yes, that means a secretary of education who will support teachers. It also means investing.(Interrupt) I'm proposing an education access... Yes, so, when I was born, there was no difference in your life expectancy, if you were P R, I born in a rural area or a city. Now the gap is the biggest it has been in a generation, and that is particularly affecting black rural families in places like South Carolina. We're seeing hospital closures right and left. And we're seeing them, in particular, in states where Medicaid was not expanded, something that is hurting black and poor Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 175
white families and is largely the result of racial voters suppression. See, all of these things are connected, housing, wages, the ability to get anything meaningful done on criminal justice reform. All of these things are going to be harder to deal with as long as black voices are systematically excluded from political participation, which is happening on everything from the purging of voter rolls to the closing of voting locations. And that harms everyone.(Interrupt) It's why in my Frederick Douglass plan for comprehensively dealing with these issues, part of the core of it is a 21st Century Voting Rights Act. Well, the first time I ever set foot in South Carolina, it was stepping off the bus that P R, I brought me to combat training near Fort Jackson. And that was to get ready to go to Afghanistan, where I saw that one of the things that kept me safe, just as sure as my body armor, was the fact that the flag on my shoulder represented a country that was known to keep its word. Our allies and our adversaries knew it. The president has torn that to shreds. And so the first thing we've got to do is restore the credibility of the United States. The second thing we've got to do is make sure that we not only have the intelligence capabilities -- and I guess I disagree with the mayor; I don't think we need to have ground troops anywhere terrorists can gather, because terrorists can gather anywhere in the world. But we do need intelligence capabilities and specialists on the ground. But what good is that if you have a president who won't listen to them? Right now, some of the biggest threats that we face are not only things like counter-terrorism but issues like global health security and the Coronavirus, that rely on the ability to listen to scientists...(Interrupt) ... listen to your own intelligence and coordinate with an international community that this president has alienated because his idea of a security strategy is a big wall. The only way we're going to restore...... American credibility, the only way you can P R do this is to actually win the presidency. And I am not looking forward to a scenario where it comes down to Donald Trump, with his nostalgia for the social order of the 1950s, and Bernie Sanders with a nostalgia for the revolutionary politics of the 1960s. This is not about what coups were happening in the 1970s or '80s, this is about the future. This is about 2020. We are not going to survive or succeed, and we're certainly not going to win by reliving the Cold War. And we're not going to win these critical, critical House and Senate races if people in those races have to explain why the nominee of the Democratic Party is telling people to look at the bright side of the Castro regime. We've got to be a lot smarter about this and look to the future. This is a question for Well, first of all, I stand with the people of Idlib, who are being targeted, as you said, P D Mayor Buttigieg. As you in a brutal fashion by a dictatorship that has already been so brutal for so many years. know, viewers and voters And this is one of the reasons we have got to change the balance of power in the are participating in this region, because the president has basically vanished from the stage when it comes to through Twitter. The city even playing a role in the future there. Turkey, Russia, Iran all have so much more of of Idlib in Syria is facing a say than we do. We don't have to be invading countries to be making a difference, Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 176
an unprecedented working with our international partners, in order to deliver peace and support those humanitarian crisis. The who are standing up for self-determination. Now, I want to come back to something - Syrian regime and Russia - and I promise it relates to international affairs -- because Senator Sanders asked me are targeting schools, a question earlier. He asked the question of whether health care for everybody is a bakeries, and hospitals. radical idea, and it's not, which is why I'm for it, very much in a different way, What would you do as though. What is a radical idea is completely eliminating all private insurance. And president to push back part of how you know it is, is that no industrialized country has gone that far. He and regime and Russian I both like to talk about Denmark, for example. But even in Denmark, they have not forces and stop the killing abolished the possibility of private insurance. So this is an idea that goes further than of innocent civilians? what is acceptable in Denmark the country, let alone imagining how that's going to fly in Denmark, South Carolina. First, I'd like you each to Well, I think the biggest conception -- misconception is that I'm not passionate. I get F D, R tell us your -- the biggest that I'm kind of level, some say unflappable. I don't think you want a president who is misconception about you. flappable. But it's precisely because I'm so passionate about the things that are going That's number one. on in this country. That I consider it important to approach all of that with discipline. Number two, the South And my disciplines are guided by the mottoes I try to live by, many of which come Carolina motto is this. from scripture. And just to be clear, I would never impose my interpretation of my "While I breathe, I hope." religion to anybody. Just as sure as I'm wearing this ring I'll never let that happen to So outside of politics, in anybody. But I seek to live by the teachings that say if you would be a leader, you no more than 45 seconds must first be a servant. And, of course, the teaching, not unique to the Christian or so, what is your tradition, but a big part of it, that holds that we are to treat others as we would be personal motto, your treated. And when I think about everything at stake, from racial and economic justice personal belief, your to our stewardship of the climate, to the need to heal the sick and the need to heal this favorite quote that country, I seek for those teachings to order my steps as I go through this campaign represents you? and as I go through life.
Extra Information for Warren Database: cell numbers match
Original question posited to a different candidate Original addressee Network MSNBC Senator, your time is up. I want to put that same question to Mayor Buttigieg. ?
Well, one of the worst things about President Trump that he's done to this country is he's torn apart the moral Gillibrand fabric of who we are. When he started separating children at the border from their parents, the fact that seven children have died in his custody, the fact that dozens of children have been separated from their parents and they have no plan to reunite them. So I would do a few things. First, I would fight for comprehensive immigration reform with a pathway to citizenship. Second, I would reform how we treat asylum-seekers at the border. I would have a community-based treatment center, where we're doing it within the communities, Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 177
where asylum-seekers are given lawyers, where there's real immigration judges, not employees of the attorney general, but appointed for life, and have a community-based system. I would fund border security. But the worst thing President Trump has done is he's diverted the funds away from cross-border terrorism, cross-border human trafficking, drug trafficking, and gun trafficking, and he's given that money to the for- profit prisons. I would not be spending money in for-profit prisons to lock up children and asylum-seekers.
(Hickenlooper) I think that the question they're asking in South Bend and I think across the country is why has Hickenlooper it taken so long? We had a shooting when I first became mayor, 10 years before Ferguson. And the community came together and we created an Office of the Independent Monitor, a Civilian Oversight Commission, and we diversified the police force in two years. We actually did de-escalation training. I think the real question that America should be asking is why, five years after Ferguson, every city doesn't have this level of police accountability. If the camera wasn't on and that was the policy, you should fire the chief. ?
Thanks for the quickness. Mayor Buttigieg? CNN
Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 178
ABC (Castro)It automatically enrolls people regardless of whether they choose to opt in or not. If you lose your job, Castro for instance, his health care plan would not automatically enroll you. You would have to opt in. My health care plan would. That's a big difference. I'm fulfilling the legacy of Barack Obama, and you're not.
Let me be clear, I am pro-good school. I've got a kid, one of my little boys just started public school last week Yang and I was not there because I was running for president. So, we need to pay teachers more, because the data clearly shows that a good teacher is worth his or her weight in gold. We need to lighten up the emphasis on standardized tests, which do not measure anything fundamental about our character or human worth. But here's the big one. The data clearly shows that 65 to 70 percent of our students outcomes are determined outside of the school. We're talking about time spent at home with the parents, words read to them when they're young, stress levels in the house, income, type of neighborhood. We're putting money into schools, and educators know this, we're saying you're 100 percent responsible for educating your kids but you can only control 30 percent. They all know this. The answer is to put money directly into the families and neighborhoods to give our kids a chance to learn and our teachers a chance to teach.
CNN
So, let's be clear. Whenever someone hears the term Medicare for all who want it, understand what that really Warren means. It's Medicare for all who can afford it. And that's the problem we've got. Medicare for all is the gold standard. It is the way we get health care coverage for every single American, including the family whose child has been diagnosed with cancer, including the person who's just gotten an MS diagnosis. That's how we make sure that everyone gets health care. We can pay for this. I've laid out the basic principles. Costs are going to go up for the wealthy. They're going to go up for big corporations. They will not go up for middle- class families. And I will not sign a bill into law that raises their costs, because costs are what people care about. I have been studying this, you know, for the biggest part of my life...(interrupt) why people go bankrupt. So I think this is about our values as a country. Show me your budget, show me your tax plans, and we'll Warren know what your values are. And right now in America, the top 0.1 percent have so much wealth -- understand this -- that if we put a 2 cent tax on their 50 millionth and first dollar, and on every dollar after that, we would have enough money to provide universal childcare for every baby in this country, age zero to five, universal pre-K for every child, raise the wages of every childcare worker and preschool teacher in America, provide for universal tuition-free college, put $50 billion into historically black colleges and universities...(Interrupt)... Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 179
and cancel -- no, let me finish, please, and cancel student loan debt for 95 percent of the people who have it. My question is not why do Bernie and I support a wealth tax. It's why is it does everyone else on this stage think it is more important to protect billionaires than it is to invest in an entire generation of Americans?
Yeah, absolutely. So, really, what you're saying, Mayor Pete, is that you would continue to support having Gabbard U.S. troops in Syria for an indefinite period of time to continue this regime change war that has caused so many refugees to flee Syria, that you would continue to have our country involved in a war that has undermined our national security, you would continue this policy of the U.S. actually providing arms in support to terrorist groups in Syria, like Al Qaida, HTS, al-Nusra and others, because they are the ones who have been the ground force in this regime change war? That's really what you're saying? (Interrupt)Will you end the regime change war, is the question. (Interrupt) What is an endless war if it's not a regime change war? No, Turkey is not a U.S. ally when they invade another country and engage in mass slaughter. The crisis here, Sanders as I think Joe said and Pete said, is when you begin to betray people, in terms of the Kurds, 11,000 of them died fighting ISIS, 20,000 were wounded. And the United States said, "We're with you, we're standing with you." And then suddenly, one day after a phone call with Erdogan, announced by tweet, Trump reverses that policy. Now, you tell me what country in the world will trust the word of the president of the United States. In other words, what he has done is wreck our ability to do foreign policy, to do military policy, because nobody in the world will believe this pathological liar. This is not a purity test. This is a country that loses 40,000 of our fellow Americans every year to gun O'Rourke violence. This is a crisis. We've got to do something about it. And those challenges that you described are not mutually exclusive to the challenges that I'm describing. I want to make sure we have universal background checks and red flag laws and that we end the sale of these weapons of war, but to use the analogy of health care, it would be as though we said, look, we're for primary care, but let's not talk about mental health care because that's a bridge too far. People need that primary care now, so let's save that for another day. No, let's decide what we are going to believe in, what we're going to achieve. And then let's bring this country together in order to do that. Listening to my fellow Americans, to those moms who demand action, to those students who march for our lives, who, in fact, came up with this extraordinary bold peace plan...(Interrupt)... that calls for mandatory buybacks, let's follow their inspiration and lead and not be limited by the polls and the consultants and the focus groups. Let's do what's right..
That's a mischaracterization. Anderson, I've got to answer this. Never took you or anyone else on who O'Rourke disagrees with me on this issue. But when you, Mayor Buttigieg, described this policy as a shiny object, I don't care what that meant to me or my candidacy, but to those who have survived gun violence, those who've lost a loved one to an AR-15, an AK-47, marched for our lives, formed in the courage of students willing to stand up to the NRA and conventional politics and poll-tested politicians, that was a slap in the fact to every single one of those groups and every single survivor of a mass casualty assault with an AR-15 and an AK- 47.9Interupt) We must buy them back. I would not get into court packing. We had three justices. Next time around, we lose control, they add three Biden justices. We begin to lose any credibility the court has at all. I want to point out that the justices I've Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 180
supported, when I defeated Robert Bork -- and I say when I defeated Robert Bork, I made sure we guaranteed a woman's right to choose for the better part of a generation. I would make sure that we move and insist that we pass, we codify Roe v. Wade. The public is already there. Things have changed. And I would go out and I would campaign against those people in the state of Ohio, Alabama, et cetera, who in fact are throwing up this barrier. Reproductive rights are a constitutional right. And, in fact, every woman should have that right. And so I would not pack the court. What I would do is make sure that the people that I recommended for the court, from Ruth Bader Ginsburg to Elena Kagan, who used to work for me, to others, that they, in fact, support the right of privacy, on which the entire notion of a woman's right to choose is based. And that's what I would do. No one would get on the court. And by the way, if, in fact, at the end of this -- beginning next year, if, in fact, one of the justices steps down, God forbid, in fact, I would make sure that we would do exactly what McConnell did last time out. We would not allow any hearing to be held for a new justice.
MSNBC/Washington Post
Well, I was asked a question that related to a stock photograph that his campaign published. But, listen, I think Harris that it really speaks to a larger issue, and I'll speak to the larger issue. I believe that the mayor has made apologies for that. The larger issue is that for too long I think candidates have taken for granted constituencies that have been the backbone of the Democratic Party and have overlooked those constituencies and have -- you know, they show up when it's, you know, close to election time and show up in a black church and want to get the vote, but just haven't been there before. I mean, you know, the -- there are plenty of people who applauded black women for the success of the 2018 election, applauded black women for the election of a senator from Alabama. But, you know, at some point, folks get tired of just saying, oh, you know, thank me for showing up and -- and say, well, show up for me. Because when black women... When black women are three to four times more likely to die in connection with childbirth in America, when the sons of black women will die because of gun violence more than any other cause of death, when black women make 61 cents on the dollar as compared to all women, who tragically make 80 cents on the dollar, the question has to be, where you been? And what are you going to do? And do you understand who the people are? And I'm running for president because I believe that we have to have leadership in this country who has worked with and have the experience of working with all folks. And we've got to re-create the Obama coalition to win. And that means about women, that's people of color, that's our LGBTQ community, that's working people, that's our labor unions. But that is how we are going to win this election, and I intend to win.
Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 181
I agree with what the mayor has just said, but this is a good example where he has said the right words, but I Klobuchar actually have the experience and of leading 11 of the bills that are in that House-passed bill you just referred to. And I think this kind of experience matters. I have been devoted to this from the time that I've got to the Senate. And I think having that experience, knowing how you can get things done, leading the bills to take the social media companies to task, a bipartisan bill to say, yeah, you have to say where these ads come from and how they're paid for, and stop the unbelievable practice where we still have 11 states that don't have backup paper ballots. That is my bipartisan bill. And I am so close to getting it done. And the way I get it done is if I'm president. But just like I have won statewide and mayor, I have all appreciation for your good work as a local official, and you did not when you tried, I also have actually done this work. I think experience should matter. Thank you. I mean, voting rights are essential for our democracy. Securing our elections is essential for our Gabbard democracy. I've introduced legislation called the Securing Americas Elections Act that mandates paper ballots to make sure that every single voter's voice is heard. But I want to get back to Pete Buttigieg and his comments about experience. Pete, you'll agree that the service that we both have provided to our country as veterans by itself does not qualify us to serve as commander-in-chief. I think the most recent example of your inexperience in national security and foreign policy came from your recent careless statement about how you as president would be willing to send our troops to Mexico to fight the cartels. As commander-in-chief, leader of our armed forces, I bring extensive experience, serving for seven years in Congress, on the Foreign Affairs Committee, on the Armed Services Committee, on the Homeland Security Committee, meeting with leaders of countries around the world, working with military commanders of different commands...(Interrupt) ... dealing with high-level national security briefings, understanding what's necessary, the preparation that I've gotten to walk in on day one to serve as commander-in-chief. PBS/Washington Post Well, I don't think they really do like the economy. Go back and talk to the old neighborhoods and middle- Biden class neighborhoods you grew up in. The middle class is getting killed. The middle class is getting crushed. And the working class has no way up as a consequence of that. You have, for example, farmers in the Midwest, 40 percent of them couldn't pay their bills last year. You have most Americans, if they received a bill for $400 or more, they'd have to sell something or borrow the money. The middle class is not as behind the eight ball. We have to make sure that they have an even shot. We have to eliminate a significant number of these god-awful tax cuts that were given to the very wealthy. We have to invest in education. We have to invest in health care. We have to invest in those things that make a difference in the lives of middle-class people so they can maintain their standard of living. That's not being done. And the idea that we're growing -- we're not growing. The wealthy, very wealthy are growing. Ordinary people are not growing. They are not happy with where they are. And that's why we must change this presidency now. Oh, they're just wrong. Let's start with a wealth tax. The idea of a two-cent tax on the great fortunes in this Warren country, $50 million and above. For two cents, what can we do? We can invest in the rest of America. We can provide universal childcare, early childhood education for every baby in this country, age 0 to 5, universal pre- K for every 3-year-old and 4-year-old, and raise the wages of every childcare worker and preschool teacher. We can do even more for our public schools, for college graduates. We can cancel student loan debt. But think Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 182
about the economic impact of that. You leave two cents with the billionaires, they're not eating more pizzas, they're not buying more cars. We invest that 2 percent in early childhood education and childcare, that means those babies get top-notch care. It means their mamas can finish their education. It means their mamas and their daddies can take on real jobs, harder jobs, longer hours. (Interrupt) We can increase productivity in this country. And we can start building this economy from the ground up. That's how we build it in small towns. That's how we build it in rural America. And that's how we built it in urban America. An economy that works, not for Wall Street, but that works for Main Street. Look, I am hoping that we, in fact, will do what I'm suggesting, which is declare a state of emergency on day Steyer one of my presidency. I have made this -- I believe I'm the only person here who will say unequivocally this is my number-one priority. I know that we have to deal with this crisis. I know that we have to deal with it from the standpoint of environmental justice. I've been working on this for more than a decade. I've taken on oil companies and beaten them on environmental laws. I've pushed clean energy across this country. I've prevented pipelines and I've prevented fossil fuel plants. But what I know is this: Not only can we clear up the air and water in the black and brown communities where our pollution is concentrated, this is also the opportunity to create literally millions of middle-class union jobs, well-paid, across the United States of America. Our biggest crisis is our biggest opportunity. And if we don't declare a state of emergency on day one, I don't understand how we go to the people around the world to lead the coalition that has to happen and that only America can lead. Look, this is a generational question. I have a lot of respect for the people on this stage. I know everybody is worried about this. But, for instance, I would call on Mayor Buttigieg to prioritize this higher because the people in his generation understand that this is a crisis that we have to go on right now, but it's also...(interrupt)... the greatest opportunity to rebuild and reinvent America. Israel has -- and I say this as somebody who lived in Israel as a kid, proudly Jewish -- Israel has the right not Sanders only to exist, but to exist in peace and security. But what -- but what U.S. foreign policy must be about is not just being pro-Israel. We must be pro-Palestinian, as well. And whether, in my view -- we must understand that right now in Israel we have leadership under Netanyahu, who has recently, as you know, been indicted for bribery, who, in my view, is a racist -- what we need is a level playing field in terms of the Middle East, which addresses the terrible crisis in Gaza, where 60 percent or 70 percent of the young people are unemployed. So what my foreign policy will be about is human rights, is democracy, is bringing people together in a peaceful way, trying to negotiate agreements, not endless wars with trillions of dollars of expenses.
When it comes to foreign policy, I think we need to keep our promises and keep our threats. And this Klobuchar president has done neither. In a country like China, their leaders, they watch that and they know. He has stood with dictators over innocents. He has stood with tyrants over free leaders. He does it all the time. And I have a little different take than some of my colleagues when it comes to what happened at that conference with NATO. Yeah, they were making fun of them, some of the foreign leaders. I've heard senators make more fun of other senators than that. The point of it was that he couldn't even tolerate it. He is so thin-skinned that he walked. He quit. America doesn't quit. So if we want to send a message to the Chinese, we stand with our allies. We stand with them firmly. We have a very clear and coherent foreign policy when it comes to human rights. Check out my website, amyklobuchar.com. I have the five R's of our foreign policy, about reasserting our values, rejoining international agreements, like the Iranian nuclear agreement. But it all comes down to Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 183
one R: returning to sanity. Those selfies -- no, I want to finish this. Those selfies cost nobody anything. And I get it. In a democracy, we Warren all have a lot of different points of view. And everybody gets one vote. But here's the thing. People who can put down $5,000 to have a picture taken don't have the same priorities as people who are struggling with student loan debt or who are struggling to pay off medical debt. I want -- I'm running a campaign where people whose voices get heard. We can't have... (Interrupt) We can't have people who can put down $5,000 for a check drown out the voices of everyone else. (Interrupt)They don't in my campaign, and they won't in my White House. So the mayor just recently had a fundraiser that was held in a wine cave full of crystals and served $900-a- Warren bottle wine. Think about who comes to that. He had promised that every fundraiser he would do would be open door, but this one was closed door. We made the decision many years ago that rich people in smoke- filled rooms would not pick the next president of the United States. Billionaires in wine caves should not pick the next president of the United States. I don't meet -- I don't meet behind closed doors with big dollar donors. And, look, I have taken one that ought Warren to be an easy step for everyone here. I've said to anyone who wants to donate to me, if you want to donate to me, that's fine, but don't come around later expecting to be named ambassador, because that's what goes on in these high-dollar fundraisers. I said no, and I asked everybody on this stage to join me. This ought to be an easy step. And here's the problem. If you can't stand up and take the steps that are relatively easy, can't stand up to the wealthy and well connected when it's relatively easy when you're a candidate, then how can the American people believe you're going to stand up to the wealthy and well-connected when you're president and it's really hard?
Well, I was -- I was harkening back. I made my case on immigration to what the mayor said about Klobuchar Washington. So I look at this a different way. When we were in the last debate, Mayor, you basically mocked the hundred years of experience on the stage. And what do I see on this stage? I see Elizabeth's work starting the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and helping 29 million people. I see the vice president's work in getting $2 billion for his cancer moon shot. I see Senator Sanders' work -- working to get the veterans bill passed across the aisle. And I see what I've done, which is to negotiate three farm bills and be someone that actually had major provisions put in those bills. So while you can dismiss committee hearings, I think this experience works. And I have not denigrated your experience as a local official. I have been one. (Interrupt) I just think you should respect our experience when you look at how you evaluate someone who can get things done. I have been -- I certainly respect your military experience. That's not what this is about. This is about choosing Klobuchar a president. And I know my view of this is I know you ran to be chair of the Democratic National Committee. That's not something that I wanted to do. I want to be president of the United States. And the point is, we should have someone heading up this ticket that has actually won and been able to show that they can gather the support that you talk about of moderate Republicans and independents, as well as a fired-up Democratic base, and not just done it once, I have done it three times. I think winning matters. I think a track record of Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 184
getting things done matters. And I also think showing our party that we can actually bring people with us, have a wider tent, have a bigger coalition, and, yes, longer coattails, that matters.
CNN No, I think we need to get our combat troops out. You know, we have to stop this mindset that we can do Warren, Biden everything with combat troops. Our military is the finest military on Earth and they will take any sacrifice we ask them to take. But we should stop asking our military to solve problems that cannot be solved militarily. Our keeping combat troops there is not helping. We need to work with our allies. We need to use our economic tools. We need to use our diplomatic tools. Now, look, I understand, there are people on this stage, when it comes to Afghanistan, for example, who talk about 5 more years, 10 more years. Shoot, Lindsey Graham talks about leaving troops there for a hundred more years. No one has a solution and an endpoint. We need to get our combat troops out. They are not helping create more safety for the United States or the region. BIDEN: Well, I tell you what, there's a difference between combat troops and leaving special forces in a position. I was part of the coalition to put together 68 countries to deal with stateless terror as well as failed states. Not us alone, 68 other countries. That's how we were able to defeat and end the caliphate for ISIS. They'll come back if we do not deal with them and we do not have someone who can bring together the rest of the world to go with us, with small numbers of special forces we have, to organize the effort to take them down. I ran the first time as a 29-year-old kid against the war in Vietnam on the grounds that the only way to take a Biden nation to war is with the informed consent of the American people. The informed consent of the American people. And with regard to this idea that we can walk away and not have any troops anywhere, including special forces, we -- there's no way you negotiate or have been able to negotiate with terrorists. You have to be able to form coalitions to be able to defeat them or contain them. If you don't, we end up being the world's policeman again. They're going to come to us. They've come to us before. They'll come to us again. So it's a fundamental difference than negotiating with other countries. It's fundamentally the requirement that we use our special forces in small numbers to coordinate with other countries to bring together coalitions. (Interrupt) No, there was the authorization for the use of military force that was passed by the United States Congress, House, and Senate, and signed by the president. That was the authority. It does not give authority to go into Iran. It gave authority to deal with these other issues.
Look, on the first day, I would undo Mr. Trump's tariffs. On the first day, I would get rid of his waivers that Steyer Senator Klobuchar was referring to, to oil refiners, so that not having to use corn- based ethanol. In fact, these Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 185
trade deals have been exactly what Senator Sanders and Warren have been saying, which is that they've been designed to grow the American GDP for the corporations of America, not for the working people of America, and not to protect the climate. So let me say this. I'm the only person on this stage who says climate is my number one priority. I would not sign this deal, because if climate is your number one priority, you can't sign a deal, even if it's marginally better for working people until climate is also taken into consideration. Look, I've got four kids between the ages of 26 and 31. I cannot allow this country to go down the path of climate destruction. Everybody in their generation knows it. Frankly, Mayor Buttigieg, you're their generation. I think you would be standing up more -- look, that's why I'm standing up for it. We cannot put climate on the backseat all the time and say we're going to sign this one more deal, we're going to do one more thing without putting climate first. That's why it's my number one priority. We can do it in a way that makes us richer, but we have to do it.
So I started this by talking about 36 million Americans, including Americans with insurance, who just can't Warren even afford to have a prescription filled. We all talk about plans, health care plans that we have, and these plans are paid for. The problem is that plans like the mayor's and like the vice president's is that they are an improvement. They are an improvement over where we are right now. But they're a small improvement. And that's why it is that they cost so much less, because by themselves, they're not going to be enough to cover prescriptions for 36 million people who can't afford to get them filled. What we need to do is make the commitment that we know where the money comes from. We can ask those at the very top, the top 1 percent, to pay a little more. Those giant corporations like Chevron and Amazon who paid nothing in taxes, we can have them pay. And we can go after the corporate tax cheats. And when we do that, we have enough money to provide health care for all our people. Yes, we build on the Affordable Care Act, but where we end up is we offer health care to all of our people. And we can offer it at no cost or low cost to all of them.
Look, we know how Donald Trump is going to run for president. He's going to run on the economy. He's Steyer already told Americans last month in Florida, "You don't like me and I don't like you, but you're all going to vote for me because the Democrats are going to destroy the economy in 15 minutes if they get in control." So let's be clear. I started a business by myself in one room. I didn't inherit a penny from my parents. I spent 30 years building that business into a multi-billion-dollar international business. Then I walked away from it and took the giving pledge and started organizing coalitions of ordinary Americans to take on unchecked corporate power. But whoever is going to beat Mr. Trump is going to have to beat him on the economy. And I have the experience and the expertise to show that he's a fake there and a fraud. Look, Mayor Pete has three years as an analyst at McKinsey. I have 30 years of international business experience. I can beat Trump on the economy. We're going to have to beat him on the economy. And I look forward to taking him down in the fall on the Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 186
debate stage. ABC/From blog
So I think we need to think about healthcare a little differently and that is, 36 million Americans last year Warren couldn‘t afford to have a prescription filled and that includes people with health insurance. I want everyone in here to think about what that means. They were worried enough or sick enough that they went to a doctor, a doctor looked at it and says that‘s serious enough to write a prescription. They walked out and then said, it‘s either that or groceries. It‘s that or pay them rent on time. We have got to change our healthcare system. The way [no audio or video 00:18:34] Help to the most people as quickly as we can. How about we start with what a president can do, I love saying this, all by herself. On day one, I will defend the Affordable Care Act and I will use march in orders to reduce the cost of commonly used prescription drugs like insulin and HIV, AIDS, drugs and EpiPens. We can start making healthcare better for Americans from the beginning, but we have to agree to do that. We are the Democrats, we are on the side of expanding healthcare. When we come up against Donald Trump, the team that has been trying to take away healthcare from millions of people, what‘s going to matter most is we are the people on the side of those who need healthcare across this country. That‘s who Democrats are. The politics of the past I think were not all that bad. I wrote the Violence Against Women Act. I managed the Biden $900 billion Recovery Act, which in fact put millions and millions of dollars into his city before he came and helped save his city. I was able to do it, I was able to pass the chemical weapons ban, arms control. And I was the first major leader holding public office to call for same sex marriage. So I don‘t know what about the past of Barack Obama and Joe Biden was so bad. What happened? What is it that he wants to do away with? We were just beginning. … Happened, what is it that he wants to do away with? We were just beginning. It was just the beginning of what will be the future of moving this country beyond where it is now in significant ways, and there‘s ways to do that, and one of the ways to do that is to make sure you have someone who knows how to get things done, and can lead the free world at the same time. I have heard this conversation on this debate stage from these people now every single debate, and they‘re all Steyer right, everybody on this stage is better on economic justice and healthcare than anybody in the Republican party, and a million times better than Donald Trump. That is not the question in front of us today. The question in front of us today is, how are we going to beat Donald Trump? You were in the Clinton campaign in 992, and the mantra was, ―It‘s the economy, stupid.‖ Well, if you look at what Mr. Trump is saying, he‘s saying those words, ―It‘s the economy, stupid.‖ I trust every one of these people a million times more, but we‘re going to have to take Mr. Trump down on the economy, because if you listen to him, he‘s crowing about it every single day, and he‘s going to beat us unless we can take him down on the economy, stupid. And that‘s the issue here. It is not about who has the best healthcare plan. All the healthcare plans are better, a million times better. The question is, who can go toe to toe with Mr. Trump? Who can take down Mr. Trump, because he‘s the real threat to the country? And let me say, you have to have experience to take him down. This is not a question of he‘s a nice guy who‘s going to listen. We need people with experience. That‘s why I‘m worried about Mayor Pete. You need to be able to go toe to toe with this guy, and take him down on the Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 187
debate stage, or we‘re going to lose. And that‘s actually the issue in front of democratic voters. I have heard this debate so many darn times, and I love all these people, and they‘re all right. If we win, we can get the right thing, Bernie. I am with you. If we win, we can get the right thing, Pete, and Amy, but we got to win, or we are in deep trouble, and we keep not talking about the facts.
Well, it‘s a funny thing. There are millions of people who can desire to run for office, but I guess if you‘re Sanders work $60 billion and you can spend several hundred million dollars on commercials, you have a slight advantage. That is nonsense. What we have got to do is have a nation in which we not only overturn Citizens United, we move to public funding of election. In terms of money in politics, our campaign, and I am enormously proud of this, unlike some of the folks up here, I don‘t have 40 billionaires, Pete, contributing to my campaign, coming from the pharmaceutical industry, coming from Wall Street, and all the big money interests. What we do have is we have now over six million contributions from one and a half million people averaging $18.50 a contribution. That is unprecedented in the history of American politics. If we want to change America, you‘re not going to do it be electing candidates who are going out to rich people‘s homes begging for money. The way we‘re going to do it is build a mass movement of working people who are prepared to stand up, not take money from these billionaires, not take money from Wall Street, but stand up to the drug companies and Wall Street. And if you want to be part of that political revolution, berniesanders.com.
In terms of who can beat Donald Trump, NBC did a poll yesterday. It says Joe Biden is best equipped to beat Biden NBC Donald Trump. That's what your poll said. And it said that I can beat him in those toss-up states, too, those states we have to win. I'm ahead by eight points across the board. So in terms of being able to beat Donald Trump, I'm better positioned, according to your poll, than anybody else to beat Donald Trump, number one. Number two, the mayor makes an interesting point. The mayor says that he has a great record, that he's done these wonderful things. Well, the fact -- the fact of the matter is, he has not managed his city very, very well when he was there. He didn't get a whole lot done. He had stop and frisk, throwing close to 5 million young black men up against a wall. And when we came along in our administration, President Obama, and said we're going to send in a moderator to -- a mediator, stop it, he said that's unnecessary. So I -- we're going to get a Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 188
chance to talk about the mayor's record. But in terms of who is best prepared to beat Donald Trump, look at your poll and what it says. If speaking to the needs and the pain of a long-neglected working class is polarizing, I think you got the wrong Sanders word. What we are trying finally to do is to give a voice to people who after 45 years of work are not making a nickel more than they did 45 years ago. We are giving a voice to people who are saying we are sick and tired of billionaires like Mr. Bloomberg seeing huge expansions of their wealth while a half-a-million people sleep out on the street tonight. And that's what we are saying, Pete, is maybe it's a time for the working class of this country to have a little bit of power in Washington, rather than your billionaire campaign contributors. We have over 10.6 million people on Twitter, and 99.9 percent of them are decent human beings, are working Sanders people, are people who believe in justice, compassion, and love. And if there are a few people who make ugly remarks, who attack trade union leaders, I disown those people. They are not part of our movement. But let me also say what I hope my friends up here will agree with is that if you look at the wild west of the internet, talk to some of the African-American women on my campaign. Talk to Senator Nina Turner. Talk to others and find the vicious, racist, sexist attacks that are coming their way, as well. So I would hope that all of us understand that we should do everything we possibly can to end the viciousness and ugliness on the internet. Our campaign is about issues. It's about fighting for the working families and the middle class. It is not about vicious attacks on other people. Well, Pete, if you want to talk to some of the women on my campaign, what you will see is the most ugly, Sanders sexist, racist attacks that are -- I wouldn't even describe them here, they're so disgusting. And let me say something else about this, not being too paranoid. All of us remember 2016, and what we remember is efforts by Russians and others to try to interfere in our election and divide us up. I'm not saying that's happening, but it would not shock me. I saw some of those tweets regarding the Culinary Workers Union. I have a 30-year 100 percent pro-union voting record. Do you think I would support or anybody who supports me would be attacking union leaders? It's not thinkable. So I want to be clear. I've been to the Culinary Union's health care facilities. They're terrific. You don't want to Warren shut them down. You want to expand them. You want to see them all across Nevada and all across this country. But we need to get everybody's health care plan out here. Mayor Buttigieg really has a slogan that was thought up by his consultants to paper over a thin version of a plan that would leave millions of people unable to afford their health care. It's not a plan. It's a PowerPoint. And Amy's plan is even less. It's like a Post-It note, "Insert Plan Here." Bernie has started very much -- has a good start, but instead of expanding and bringing in more people to help, instead, his campaign relentlessly attacks everyone who asks a question or tries to fill in details about how to actually make this work. And then his own advisors say, yeah, probably won't happen anyway. Look, health care is a crisis in this country. We need -- my approach to this is we need as much help for as many people as quickly as possible and bring in as many supporters as we can. And if we don't get it all the first time, take the win and come back into the fight to ask for more.
Can I finish? The average American today is paying $12,000 a year. That's what that family is paying, 20 Sanders percent of a $60,000 income, $12,000 a year, highest prices in the world for prescription drugs. Just the other day, a major study came out from Yale epidemiologist in Lancet, one of the leading medical publications in the world. What they said, my friends, is Medicare for all will save $450 billion a year, because we are Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 189
eliminating the absurdity of thousands of separate plans that require hundreds of billions of dollars of administration and, by the way, ending the $100 billion a year in profiteering from the drug companies and the insurance companies. Yes, that's right. And I said that I made an error. I think having a president that maybe is humble and is able to Klobuchar admit that here and there maybe wouldn't be a bad thing. He's basically saying that I don't have the experience to be president of the United States. I have passed over Klobuchar 100 bills as the lead Democrat since being in the U.S. Senate. I am the one, not you, that has won statewide in congressional district after congressional district. And I will say, when you tried in Indiana, Pete, to run, what happened to you? You lost by over 20 points to someone who later lost to my friend, Joe Donnelly. So don't tell me about experience. What unites us here is we want to win. And I think we should put a proven winner in charge of the ticket. Well, you're not going to go to war with them. You have to negotiate with them and try to -- and we've seen Bloomberg how well that works with tariffs that are hurting us. What you have to do is convince the Chinese that it is in their interest, as well. Their people are going to die just as our people are going to die. And we'll work together. In all fairness, the China has slowed down. It's India that is an even bigger problem. But it is an enormous problem. Nobody's doing anything about it. We could right here in America make a big difference. We're closing the coal-fired power plants. If we could enforce some of the rules on fracking so that they don't release methane into the air and into the water, you'll make a big difference. But we're not going to get rid of fracking for a while. And we, incidentally not just natural gas. You frack oil, as well. It is a technique, and when it's done poorly, like they're doing in too many places where the methane gets out into the air, it is very damaging. But it's a transition fuel, I think the senator said it right. We want to go to all renewables. But that's still many years from now. And we -- before I think the senator mentioned 2050 for some data. No scientist thinks the numbers for 2050 are 2050 anymore. They're 2040, 2035. The world is coming apart faster than any scientific study had predicted. We've just got to do something now.
To win, to beat Donald Trump. The best way to protect the Dreamers is to have a new president. There are the Klobuchar votes there to protect the Dreamers. And I have been working on this since I got to the United States Senate. In my first campaign, I actually had a bunch of ads run against me because I was standing up for immigrants. And when I think of Dreamers -- and I try to explain it to my state -- I found a 99-year-old Hispanic war veteran who was a Dreamer when he was brought over to this country. And back then, he just went to Canada for a night and came back and he was a permanent citizen, because they needed him to serve in World War II. Now, not so easy. The Dreamers are our future. The Dreamers are so important in Nevada. And the best way we can get this done is to beat Donald Trump, but it is to pass comprehensive immigration reform, which creates a path to citizenship to so many hard-working people, will bring down the deficit by $158 billion, and will bring peace for these Dreamers. Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 190
I wish everyone was as perfect as you, Pete. But let me tell you what it's like to be in the arena. Number one, Klobuchar do the math. If my friend, Andrew Yang, was up here, that's what he'd say. In fact, I have opposed, not supported, two-thirds of the Trump judges, so get your numbers right. And I am in the top 10 to 15 of opposing them. Number two, when it comes to immigration reform, the things that you are referring to, that official that you are referring to was supported by about half the Democrats, including someone in this room. And I will say this: He was highly recommended by the Obama officials. Do you know why? Because Trump had so few career people. I did not one bit agree with these draconian policies to separate kids from their parents. And in my first 100 days, I would immediately change that. And I would add one more thing. I have been in the arena. You know what, Pete? If you could let me finish, since I've been in the arena. Ted Kennedy asked me to work Klobuchar on the first immigration bill. We were able with President Bush to at least get that bill to a vote. I'm sorry that Senator Sanders actually opposed that bill, and I worked on it. And if we had gotten that bill done, there would have been a path to citizenship for so many people. Then I worked on the 2013 bill. I'm actually so proud of the work I have done on immigration reform. And you know what? You have not been in the arena doing that work. You've memorized a bunch of talking points and a bunch of things, but I can tell you one thing. What the people of this country want, they want a leader that has the heart for the immigrants of this country, and that is me.
CBS I wonder why. And maybe, you know, Pete mentions what the American people want. I will tell you, Pete, Sanders what the American people want, and, Joe, what the American people want. They don't want candidates to be running to billionaires for huge amounts of funding. (Interrupt) Pete has gotten funding from over 50 billionaires. (interrupt) Joe, I think, has gotten a little bit more. What the American people want, by the way, and a lot of the issues we'll be discussing tonight are issues I raised four years ago: raising the minimum wage to a living wage, 15 bucks an hour. Making public colleges and universities tuition-free. And finally, doing what every other major country on Earth does, guaranteeing health care to all people as a human right through a Medicare for All, single-payer system. (Interrupt) I didn't say that, Pete.
Crosstalk (need to go find) Sanders Excuse me, Amy. This conversation shows a huge risk for the Democratic Party. We are looking at a party Steyer that has decided that we're either going to support someone who is a democratic socialist or somebody who has a long history of being a Republican. And let me say that I got into this race because I wanted to fight for economic justice, for racial justice, and to make sure we had climate justice for the American people. And I am scared. If we cannot pull this party together, if we go to one of those extremes, we take a terrible risk of re- electing Donald Trump. (Interrupt) And that is something -- I still have some time. And let me say this. (Interrupt) That is a risk that will hurt the American people in a way that none of us on this stage should be willing to risk. OK. So, if I could finish. I have the bill. Anyone can check it out, to close the boyfriend loophole. Also to Klobuchar close the Charleston loophole is another bill that is out there. Universal background checks. But let me say Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 191
how we win this. We have got to win in the middle of the country. And while everyone talks about winning rural areas, suburban areas, I'm the only one up here with a receipts that has actually repeatedly, while being for the assault weapon ban, won in Republican congressional districts over and over again, including Michele Bachmann's district. So having someone that can lead the ticket, that can bring people with her, is the way you get gun safety legislation. I look at these proposals and say, do they hit my uncle Dick in the deer stand? They do not. So coming from a proud hunting state and still being able to pass this legislation is going to be the key. This campaign, our campaign, our campaign is about changing American priorities. Instead of giving tax Sanders breaks to billionaires, we're going to have high-quality, universal childcare for every family in this country. Because the psychologists tell us 0 to 4 are the most important years of human development. We are going to triple funding for low-income Title I schools, because kids' education should not depend upon the ZIP Code in which they live. We're going to make public colleges and universities tuition-free through a tax on Wall Street speculation. And we're going to move to make certain that no teacher in America earns less than $60,000 a year. People aren't always aware, I know you are in South Carolina, about how much poverty there is, particularly Klobuchar child poverty in rural areas. So the answer is one size doesn't fit all. And one of the ways you do this, right now we have something called critical access hospitals so they're designated for rural areas. And actually, I am leading -- the lead Democrat on a bill to extend that, to have other types of hospitals, like emergency rooms in rural areas be covered. The other issue is we don't have enough personnel. And so that's where we get to this education plan.. And I don't want agree with some of my colleagues here about putting hard-earned taxpayer money into rich kids going to college. What I think we need to do instead is look at what our needs are in our economy. We're going to have a million openings for home health care workers, particularly in rural areas, that we don't know how to fill. We're going to have over 100,000 openings for nursing assistants. We're not going to have a shortage of sports marketing degrees. We're going to have a shortage of plumbers and nurses. So putting incentives in place with how we do loan payback, making one- and two-year degrees free, and then of course creating loan payback programs if people will go, especially medical students, into rural areas. Final thing is comprehensive immigration reform. I have passed...(Interrupt) I have passed the bill that allows doctors from other countries that study in our medical schools to stay and serve in rural areas. We need to expand that. No. You want to cut it back as much as you can, but I think, if we learned something from 9/11, people plan Bloomberg things overseas and execute them here. We have to be able to stop terrorism. And there's no guarantees that you're going to be able to do it, but we have to have some troops in places where terrorists congregate, and to not do so is just irresponsible. We shouldn't be fighting wars that we can't win. We should go to war only as a last resort. Nobody argues with that. But this is a dangerous world. And if we haven't learnt that after 9/11, I don't know what's going to teach us what to. This -- we have to do something, and I think the budget that we -- the things that I've seen recently convinced me that the military today is better prepared than they have been in an awful long time, and that the monies they are spending on the war of weapons we need for the next war and not for the last, a common mistake that they're not making now. They're doing a good job.
Semantics and Pragmatics in Political Debates 192