Bernie wants debate free-for-all?!?!

[RobertEarl]

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/cbc2da56e0ed4c068ca036faf17d0e10/2016-hopefuls-parade-sunday-morning-shows

WASHINGTON (AP) — Bernie Sanders is itching to debate and not just with other Democrats running for the party's presidential nomination. He says Democratic and Republican contenders should be debating each other during the primary season, too.

That shakeup is unlikely to happen — each party is planning its own debates, as usual. But the network news shows Sunday morning were something of a debating society of their own as 10 declared and likely candidates from both parties appeared in a parade of political argument and sound bites, touching on ISIS, personal ambition, immigration, hair color and more.

<snip>

BRING ON THE DEBATES

"We need a lot more debates in this campaign," Sanders told NBC's "Meet the Press."

The Vermont senator said the Democratic debates should begin as soon as July and, in a twist, some Republicans should be in the mix.

[MohRokTah]

1. Maybe he should seek the Democratic Socialist nomination.

[RobertEarl]

3. We call it real democracy

The elites of the Democratic party need an education in what Democracy really means.

We are fixing to learn them a lesson.

[MohRokTah]

6. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

I heard that wrt Kucinich in 2004 and 2008.

[RobertEarl]

10. Sit back and watch.

You ain't seen nothing yet.

Bernie is the Real Deal. A real believer in Democracy. This idea that an authoritarian group will be allowed to trickle down their desires on the grassroots has met the end.

[MohRokTah]

12. Enjoy your idealism

Get back in touch with me when the reality hits.

[RobertEarl]

14. I see you are back from vaca?

You have nothing to say about the desire for more democracy? Instead you want a limit on democracy?

[MohRokTah]

19. I am for the party choosing its nominee under party rules.

I'll be at my state party convention next year voting.

Will you?

[Ken Burch]

70. Bernie's for that too.

And we've now proven that he's a legitimate candidate for the Democratic nomination. So give the "he's not a Dem" slur a rest.

Nobody but the wealthy would benefit from Bernie being sidelined. That couldn't help poc, it couldn't help women, it couldn't help LGBTQ voters-or working people and the poor.

[MohRokTah]

73. What slur.

He's now saying he doesn't want to follow party rules.

If he doesn't want to follow the party rules, he's free to seek the nomination of another party.

[Ken Burch]

78. Debate formats aren't "party rules", and it's not an attack on the party to call for more debates.

Why shouldn't we have a candidate debate every two weeks on national tv right up until the convention? No one who's competent to stand for the presidency has any legitimate reason to object to that.

[cui bono]

106. Which party rules? n/t

[MohRokTah]

109. The rules set by the Democratic National Committee.

You know, the body put in place by the Democratic Party state conventions usually voted on by local Democratic officials at the local level.

Those are the people elected at the extreme local level in local Democratic primaries, typically in local elections held at times when most people don't vote.

[cui bono]

113. Which are the rules you are saying Bernie doesn't want to follow?

[MohRokTah]

117. The exclusivity rule on the debates. eom

[cui bono]

121. Link?

[MohRokTah]

124. OP. eom

[cui bono]

126. Link to the rule you are talking about?

The link in the OP is to an article.

[MohRokTah]

127. The link in the OP is to where Bernie wants to not follow the rule.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/05/politics/2016-democratic-debates-hillary-clinton/

The DNC will set the criteria for debate inclusion and any candidate who participates in a separate debate outside of the sanctioning process will be barred from future DNC debates, a Democratic official told CNN.

The Republicans have the same rule.

[cui bono]

133. That doesn't sound like an actual rule, is it?

It sound like the DNC can just decide whatever they want. I remember reading something recently where they wanted to severely limit the amount of debates this primary, which, of course, benefits the person with name recognition by limiting the people's exposure to the lesser known candidates.

So, is there an actual rule or are they just deciding criteria now?

[MohRokTah]

141. The DNC CAN decide whatever it wnats when it comes to the Democratic National Primaries.

You just don't seem to get it.

This is a party function and the ruling national committee determines the rules.

[cui bono]

146. No, I get it. So there's no actual party rule.

The DNC can decide whatever it wants. So what's wrong with Sanders making a suggestion? Where did he say he won't follow what is decided upon?

[MohRokTah]

148. The DNC is the ruling body of the Democratic National PArty.

There is party rule.

The DNC sets it.

That's how it works.

[cui bono]

150. Yes, so there is no rule that you can link to that you were demanding Sanders should follow.

I get it.

So since we've established there actually is no rule and that the DNC can set the criteria as they see fit for this primary season, what's wrong with him asking for more and open debates?

[pengu]

228. The rules from the DNC head by Clinton-loyalist Debbie Wasserman-Schultz

The rules that have considerably less debates than in 2008 and a bogus exclusivity clause that has never, ever been in place before.

Ya, those rules.

[MohRokTah]

229. So you don't like who is Chair of the DNC?

Why didn't you get involved at the local level about five years ago so you could push for somebody else?

[NorthCarolina]

144. It isn't always just about "party", sometimes it's just about the people.

This is one of those times. Lets do whats best for the people, not just the party. I agree with Bernie 100%, lets have frequent, open debates with pertinent questions and detailed responses from all sides. Let the people listen, let them decide.

[MohRokTah]

147. In the primaries, it is ALL about party. eom

[cui bono]

152. No, voting is always about the people. Unless you don't believe in democracy.

Well, perhaps in the general it is all about party since we are a two party nation, but never in the primary. In the primary all the candidates are already all in the same party.

[Plucketeer]

151. Yeah

We all know that the pomp and ceremony is SO much more valuable and constituent-serving than hard-nosed, face-to-face discussions. Dress codes - seating charts - two-sided signs (oddly prophetic) and the little cozy, pre-rehearsed production of rah-rah fan-ship. All the suspense and intrigue of a coronation.

No wonder so many citizens behold the parties to be as useful as trans-Atlantic air travel by hot air balloon.

[heaven05]

183. who are you?????

geez

[ieoeja]

240. You really don't like candidates who break DNC rules, do you?

So how do you explain your support for Hillary who broke the rules twice in 2008 after explicitly agreeing with, and promising to follow, the specific rules she went on to break?

I do believe your concern for party rules is a total sham.

[MohRokTah]

242. Yes, I got pretty pissed off when the Obama/Clinton spat over Florida in 2008 occurred.

Florida broke the rules and knew the consequences.

[YOHABLO]

181. Yeah, you'll be there with your fruit cake donkeys on your hats. Just like the Republicans.

All the balloons and signs with Hillary on them making it look as if it were a circus. And all the while the big cats of the DLC strategists will be in the back navigating. It all smacks of dis-ingenuousness.

[heaven05]

184. +1000

[MohRokTah]

193. I doubt seriously if I'll be a ational delegate. eom

[ChisolmTrailDem]

239. Cool story, bro!

[Ken Burch]

66. Why the viciousness? It's just as legit and real for Bernie to run as it is for HRC.

Much of what he calls for is popular.

BTW, we didn't exactly benefit as a party from Dennis getting marginalized in '04 or from progressives being kept totally out in the cold in the Eighties. It's thanks to people like you that Paul Wellstone died unheeded.

[MohRokTah]

68. What vicisousness?

OF course it is legit for him to run.

He will be weighed.

He will be evaluated.

And he will be winnowed out due to a lack of ability to raise the necessary money.

That's how these primaries work. They are vetting processes.

And until we can have enough of a voting bloc to alter the campaign finance mess, the money issue will remain the main issue in winnowing out candidates. It's a Catch-22, yes, but the fortunate thing is that the politicians are finding the complete requirement to spend every waking hour raising money tiring and they are all getting to the point where they see the need to change things, too.

[Ken Burch]

72. Candidates who get checks from big donors can't fight for the people.

In case you've been out of town, the last seven years have reminded us of that.

[MohRokTah]

74. Candidates who don't raise lots of money cannot win a national election.

In case you've been out of town, the last six decades have reminded us of that.

[tkmorris]

88. So we are guaranteed a candidate that cannot be expected to fight for the people

You seem remarkably cheerful about this state of affairs.

[MohRokTah]

105. You really don't get it, do you?

You cannot change a thing if you do not get elected.

Change in the American political arena has ALWAYS progressed at a snail's pace. This is a feature of our Constitutional Democratic-Republic, not a bug.

[kacekwl]

134. Always is a state of mind

Just because something has always been this way does not mean it always has to be that way. Maybe that's why change always moves a a snales pace. The time for change is now in my "radical" thinking.

[tkmorris]

206. Oh I get it. And I get YOU, most importantly

Why on Earth would a candidate who got herself elected through big money change anything at all? As it stands currently all she has to do is outraise her opponents, which means pleasing the big money interests. So, she gets elected and then FIGHTS against this state of affairs? One of us is delusional and I don't think it's me.

[workinclasszero]

235. OMG reality rears its ugly head in DU

You cannot change a thing if you do not get elected.

You would think this is the first thing people interested in politics would learn eh?

But not here, its all unicorns and rainbows here.

[TheKentuckian]

253. Bull, if there is a screw job that snail suddenly shits lightening and craps thunder

[jeff47]

82. Actually, he's been out of the country, not just out of town. (nt)

[Scootaloo]

102. Why does this argument not surprise me?

^M^O^N^E^Y ^I^S ^A^L^L ^T^H^A^T
^M^A^T^T^E^R^S

[MohRokTah]

103. In the 2016 presidential race, it is.

Tell me, how do you accomplish sweeping campaign finance reform between now and November of 2016?

[Scootaloo]

108. You really think so? Interesting

'Cause it's pretty certain Republicans are going to out-do Democrats in money. So, you'll be voting republican?

[MohRokTah]

112. TheRepublicans have not outdone the Democrats in a presidential race since 2004.

Obama majorly outraised both McCain in 2008 and Romney in 2012.

Clinton is set to outraise the Republicans by nearly 2 to 1.

[Scootaloo]

115. But you will vote for them in such an occasion?

[Caretha]

190. So let's be up front and honest

how much money do you have? You afraid of losing because you might lose some of your misbegotten 50 pieces of silver.

Thought so.

[MohRokTah]

195. Not much.

Hillary will raise $2.5 billion.

That's a guaranteed win, and the ONLY guaranteed win against the Republicans.

[Autumn]

231. It took her 4 years to pay off what she owed after her last run, the one she L.O.S.T.

What did she owe after her last run?
Oh yeah it was like $12 million to almost 500 creditors and $13.2 million to the candidate herself, who dipped into her personal funds to help finance her failed campaign.


http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/01/22/hillary-clintons-campaign-debt-finally-paid-off/

[BrotherIvan]

192. High Five

Yuuuuuuuuuup.

[davidpdx]

213. Oh crap I like that

Can I steal it?

[7962]

247. Because its HER TURN dammit!!!!

We're supposed to know that by now, by gum!!

[G_j]

116. enjoy your surrender

to a world devoid of ideals...

[MohRokTah]

118. To surrender would be to nominate a candidate incapable of outraising the Republicans. eom

[jeff47]

137. You mean like Obama?

The Republicans vastly out-raised Obama in 2012. Yet he won.

Almost like your entire thesis is wrong...

[Marr]

149. +1, lmao

[Sheepshank]

200. Actually...that falsehood is being spread often. Check out open secrets.org

Obama out raised and outspent Romney. It's intersting how this one little lie has gained traction and I'd is used so often as a debate point. As it turns out, in this case, You are very wrong.

[jeff47]

218. Because super-pacs don't exist, and are utterly independent

and never try to influence an election towards a particular candidate. They never, ever coordinate with campaigns either.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have a very important meeting scheduled with the Easter Bunny.

[Sheepshank]

219. easter bunny and spreading falsehoods.....................

...hand in hand

[DeadLetterOffice]

189. Haven't you heard? Idealism is a dirty word round these parts...

[jtuck004]

156. Sounds like what the British said to the Americans a bit over 200 years ago. n/t

[Spitfire of ATJ]

232. "Get back in touch with me when the reality hits."

That condescending attitude isn't winning anyone over.

[MohRokTah]

241. This forum isn't about "winning anyone over".

Nobody ever changes anybody's mind here, or at least when it happens it's very rare.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

243. Remember 08?

There were Hillary people who were nasty to the Obama people. Talking down to Obame supporters and acting like they are living in a land of butterflies and unicorns thinking America would vote for a black guy over Hillary. Obama supporters were expected to settle down and let the adults take it from here.

We're seeing more of that.

[MohRokTah]

245. .

[Spitfire of ATJ]

248. .....that,...and a river in Egypt.

[Aerows]

15. Hillary didn't win in 2008, either

[MohRokTah]

20. Obama outraised her in the money race.

[Aerows]

23. Something

must have made all those people throw their support behind him instead of behind Hillary.

[MohRokTah]

26. Well see, he raised a shit ton of money for Democratic candidates in 2006.

Fundraisers saw that and from the day he announced, he was neck and neck with Hillary in fund raising.

Then he won the Iowa Caucuses and those who fund campaigns saw he had potential.

He pulled ahead and the rest is history.

Make no mistake, it was about money and the ability to raise money.

[Aerows]

31. So ...

People saw President Obama, then candidate Obama, and out fund raised for him. Clinton was the favorite, and raised a lot of money, too, but lost.

I'll leave you to do the math on that one.

[MohRokTah]

33. Obama raised more money than Clinton.

There's the math.

[Aerows]

42. So what does

that tell you about her appeal to the "money makers"? I don't for a moment believe it was all just money, but since you are going with that précis, whose to say that she won't fall behind again? Things have just started heating up.

People don't tend to get elected for a particular office after getting rejected on the scale that Hillary Clinton did.

[MohRokTah]

44. Well see, the big bundlers that went to Obama in 2008...

She's got them all right now, and her own fund raising machine. She's got both Obama's mone from 2008 and her money from 2008, and much of Edwards' money from 2008 on top of that.

I think you now know why her campaign claims by election day in 2016, she'll have raised $2.5 billion

[Carewfan]

100. And whos buying it,

Certainly not the people

[MohRokTah]

101. Well then let the Republican win.

See how far you get changing things then.

Purist thinking in 2000 set things back 8 years after the Moron in Chief completely fucked the world.

[Carewfan]

128. Absolutely not.

I say we open the debates and speak. Let the people learn about their issues, not who has the perfect hair, perfect lapel pin or the right wardrobe under a focus group. Its 2008 all over again. This time, the path to the nomination is entirely different. The people wants to get excited again. Like 2008. Clinton does not have the spark to energize the people, and why? Its because the people knows Clinton represents the status quo. Its time for a change to the left. Progressives issues won every election for the last few years. We havent been able to field a real left of center candidate up until Bernie was willing to give it a go.

To prevent more than 6 debates and only exclusive debates as set forth by the DNC protects Clinton more than giving everyone a fair shake. Its the establishment whos frightened. People are calling for a change, and Bernie is it.

[MohRokTah]

130. Then you should have gotten active at the local level.

It's too late to alter the makeup of the DNC now.

See how important those off year primary elections are at the local level now?

I bet you wonder WTF a "Precinct Committeeman" is, too.

[hrmjustin]

155. Yet the polls have Hillary ahead.

[Carewfan]

159. I eagerly await the debates..

And the next polling will show Bernie rising, O'Malley still in the single digits and rising, and Hillary losing numbers to both Bernie and O'Malley, making this a competitive primary. Did you see the polling the Republican quacks over there are earning? Bernie polls better than any of them.

[hrmjustin]

161. Bernies poll numbers against the republicans is useless.

He needs to win the Democratic Nomination.

[Carewfan]

164. Oh, he will. Bernie'll secure the nomination

once it is said and done. Good luck to both of our candidates.

[hrmjustin]

180. Yes and i will support the nominee and campaign vigorously for the nominee.

[cui bono]

187. No, election fraud did that. n/t

[MohRokTah]

194. .

[cui bono]

208. You think election fraud is a CT?

You really do need to inform yourself if that's true.

[zeemike]

125. I think the argument being made is.

That people watch the money race, and the winner of the money race is the one they vote for.

If that is the case we really have been dumbed down to the point of pathetic fools.

But I don't buy it, only people in the bubble think like that.

[arcane1]

48. Maybe she should seek the Money Party nomination

[MohRokTah]

50. She is rightfully seeking the Democratic nomination.

If Bernie Sanders finds himself incapable of following the rules of the Democratic Party, perhaps he should run in his own party.

[Ken Burch]

75. Money isn't the only thing that matters.

The Obama movement was what elected him-the money is what made him surrender.

And nominating the candidate with the big money means giving up on getting big money out of politics.

The only valid progressive politics is grassroots, door-to-door politics.

BTW, you're not entitled to laugh at anyone's arguments here-you don't represent the only "serious" viewpoint, and you aren't above the rest of us. Grow up and lose the disdain-it's right-wing to sneer at people.

[MohRokTah]

79. Money is the ONLY thing that matters in a presidential race.

Obama had the money. That's how he started the movement.

[jeff47]

95. Then why'd Romney lose?

Romney raised more money. WAAAAY more when you add in "independent" super-PAC spending.

[Ken Burch]

97. And Romney's dad? And Nelson Freakin' Rockefeller...twice?

[Go Vols]

122. +1

[Marr]

154. You can't seem to get a response to that point. How odd.

lol.

[heaven05]

170. +1000

stopped that

[Sheepshank]

201. Nope...check out opensecrets.org. Obama raised & spent more n/t

[jeff47]

217. Now add in super-pacs. (nt)

[Sheepshank]

220. do you have links for Super PAC contributions for Obama Vs Romney? n/t

[jeff47]

221. Nope, they're secret! Yay Super-Pacs!

They're also officially independent, so they were not legally spending on Obama or Romney. They are "issue" organizations that miraculously happened to agree with one campaign.

Various articles have attempted to tease it out based on spending. All of them point to massive spending by conservative super-PACs and much lower spending by liberal super-PACs. There's a lot more conservative billionaires than liberal billionaires, so there's a lot more conservative super-PACs.

[Sheepshank]

223. I though it was the names of the contributors that was secret, not the amounts.

...so give all this secrecy you mention, how is that you know Romney got more than Obama? This "teased" information...is there a link to that?

[jeff47]

224. Depends on which section of the tax code your super-PAC is organized under.

Both options are available.

My understanding is most donations are laundered through a secret-donor PAC to a public-donor PAC. So the documented donations only come from the secret-donor PAC.

This "teased" information...is there a link to that?

I don't have any handy. Googling for Koch and Super-PAC should turn some up.

[jeff47]

93. Money isn't everything.

If money's the only thing that matters, you'll have to explain why Brown is the governor of CA right now. Whitman raised way more money than he did. Yet he crushed her.

Money is also why the Republican side of the race is so insane. Each billionaire can bankroll his own pet candidate, instead of the party being able to filter out the insane.

But for you, everything is about money.

[cui bono]

111. The Koch brothers *outraised* Bernie in Vermont.

Does that mean he lost?

Oh, no. It doesn't.

[MohRokTah]

114. Retail politics works at the local level.

Vermont is the size of most Congressional Districts (OOPS, I forgot, Vermont IS a single Congressional District).

We're talking 50 statewide elections in a presidential race.

[Logical]

41. You should laugh more at the fact Hillary lost a 30 point lead in 2008. How soon you forget! nt

[KingCharlemagne]

96. The most spectacular flameout since Dewey in '48, methinks. Kind of like watching a train

wreck in slow motion. Still gives me goose bumps when I pause to remember 2008.

[workinclasszero]

57. Hey I bet Dennis polled 90%

On DU at the time too

[MohRokTah]

59. Probably more like 99%

Since anybody else would have been part of the 1%.

[workinclasszero]

62. Lolz

Right.

And then the Dennis majority took over America.

Oh wait.......

[A Simple Game]

76. Right.

And then the Hillary majority took over America.

Oh, wait...

[workinclasszero]

80. Its on the way

[MohRokTah]

81. Hillary couldn't raise as much money as Obama. eom

[A Simple Game]

87. Even with a head start? n/t

[heaven05]

140. I saw them like you in 2008

Last edited Sun May 31, 2015, 09:08 PM - Edit history (1)

saying the same about our current POTUS. I just returned from a --- ----- for Bernie meeting and it was quite the genesis group. Old, young, students, even a high school student who had talked his HRC leaning mother into coming and listening. And....she ended up quite the suggestion maker for how to expand our group and effectiveness on getting Bernie's name into the local consciousness. Got really into it. So keep laughing, I think we will have the last laugh.

[MohRokTah]

143. Obama hit the ground raising as much money as Clinton.

He overtook her in the money race and the rest is history.

Your example proves my point.

[heaven05]

153. Like I said

I will have the last laugh, so please keep laughing and rationalizing. Money is important and Bernie WILL get it. Yet with Bernie being as authentic as he is and grassroots being what they are....good luck.

[Carewfan]

157. So you're for Bernie then?

Not Hillary the money candidate?

Bernie is the people's candidate. Who votes? People or money? Answer: People.

[chapdrum]

236. Yes that didn't "wrt" for Kucinich

if that's what you meant.
Please make the case for Hillary (if you can) vs. Bernie, rather than elaborately reminding us of the obvious.

[TBF]

43. ...

[workinclasszero]

51. Yup

[Sherman A1]

67. My Goodness

[AtheistCrusader]

142. I love that he's clearly so fucking threatening to you, that you have

To post that shit.

He'll make it trough the primary or he won't. It's a simple concept.

[MohRokTah]

145. He;s not threatening to me

He's becoming a joke of a candidate because he's already resorting to the tactics of Dennis Kucinich.

[PowerToThePeople]

254. He all ready has it.

http://www.dsausa.org/weneedbernie


#WeNeedBernie

Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) has announced that he is officially running as a candidate for President in 2016 to further a desperately needed political revolution in the USA.

Senator Sanders is a lifelong champion of the public programs and democratic rights that empower working class people. His candidacy could help expand both the progressive movement and the democratic socialist voice within that movement.



By running in the Democratic primaries, Independent Senator Sanders will challenge the dominant discourse of neoliberal Democrats that privilege corporate business interests over those of all working people. He will contribute to building a strong movement to halt the vicious attacks of Tea Party Republicans at all governmental levels on workers' rights, voting rights, and people of color in general.

Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) strongly supports Senator Sanders as the strongest candidate for President of the United States. We encourage him to meet with grassroots activists throughout the country to discuss how his candidacy might effectively promote their varied struggles for social and economic justice, human rights, world peace and a healthy environment.

Those who wish to promote the goals of democratic socialism should consider taking concrete and specific actions at the grassroots level that would support Sanders' candidacy. Volunteer with DSA and join us in saying: #WeNeedBernie!

[hrmjustin]

2. No thanks.

[Carewfan]

11. Why? Afraid that Hillary Clinton can't debate?

And Bernie's right. People needs to know these stuff. If people can watch DTTS, American Idol, why not make it a weekly series? Get the people's rapt attention?

Who knows? It might just work.

The DNC is wrong to limit the debates to six, and the exclusivity rule should be tossed, as well as DWS who is a terrible chairwoman for the Democratic Party.

[hrmjustin]

16. Hillary will do just fine imo.

If you want more debates than ask the dnc.

[Carewfan]

27. DNC needs to replace DWS first.

That's my opinion, and I'm sticking to it.

The Third Way is so over, and Hillary is their 'last chance' candidate before they are forced to admit that their 30-year strategy has been a failure.

Centrists have lost elections, Progressives have won elections. In November 2014, progressive issues won, while centrist candidates ran away from Obama and lost.

The debates will compare and contrast the centrists vs "far-left" as establishment Dems like to say... and once it's revealed that Bernie is the mainstream Democrat that the people have been looking almost all their lives, and it's giving the spark inside them to energize the voters to get on Bernie's campaign. Left, right, disaffected and apathetic people are liking what Bernie has to say.

In reality, the party has drifted so far to the right, so anything "far-left" is actually mainstream Democratic values. Maybe it's time for the centrist to learn about them, and understand that the values needs to be brought back?

People want real change, and it's ready for Bernie.

[MohRokTah]

35. You don't understand how parties work, do you?

See, the party holds these conventions and in those convention in off years, chairpersons are chosen and they serve for a term of four years.

Maybe you should get more involved in the party?

[Carewfan]

40. That's nice that you are loyal to the Democratic Party....

And who chooses the chairperson?

I did not have a say on who I want as a chairperson. And DWS has been a disaster for the off-year elections.

It's time for something else. In 2016, I'm sure she'll be replaced with someone who can do better as a chairperson.

[heaven05]

166. I sure hope so

[hrmjustin]

55. Good luck.

But i am sticking with Hillary.

[zappaman]

38. Welcome to DU....

Again.

[zappaman]

222. Not very nice to leave after I welcomed you!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=323455

About Carewfan

Account status: Posting privileges revoked

[Marr]

160. How on earth do you justify being against more debates?

Is it simply because limiting debates favors the candidate with more name recognition going into the race, and fuck fairness?

[hrmjustin]

162. I think 6 is enough.

[Marr]

165. Yes, I understand that is your position. But the exclusivity?

How do you justify cutting candidates out of official debates if they *don't* think six debates are enough, and choose to engage as often as possible? If Hillary's campaign thinks six is enough, they could simply attend the six official DNC debates.

[hrmjustin]

167. I never said the dnc was right or wrong.

[Marr]

169. So you think six is enough, but are against the exclusivity rule...?

I'm trying to understand your position.

[hrmjustin]

172. I am not taking a position on the exclusivety rule.

[Marr]

173. Fine, I'm done pulling teeth here. Have a nice evening. /nt

[hrmjustin]

175. Still have all my teeth here. enjoy.

[rhett o rick]

204. How about 4 or 3? nm

[hrmjustin]

205. 6 is fine.

[AtomicKitten]

4. Less debates favor Hillary who is riding high on name recognition,

... and not the less well-known candidates who would benefit from the exposure, and that is precisely why the DNC (which is now Hillary-friendly with DWS as chair) is limiting them to 6. There were some 26 debates in the 2007/08 election cycle which greatly benefited the less well-known candidate Obama, and they aren't about to repeat that "mistake" again.

[MohRokTah]

7. If lesser candidates cannot get it together in 6 debates.

Seven will make no difference and only serve to bore the public.

[Logical]

39. Well, we agree Hillary will bore the public. nt

[Carewfan]

45. I'm seeing a lot of enthusiasm

for Bernie, than I am seeing for Hillary. The spark for Hillary isn't just there. Know what I'm saying?

[peecoolyour]

77. Maybe the focus groups will leak her answers ahead of time.

So we won't even have to watch the 7th debate.

[RobertEarl]

8. Yep

So what Bernie is doing is going around them and demanding real democracy by opening the debates up to everyone.

They best not mess with Bernie, they will get berned!

[AtomicKitten]

9. Feel the Bern!

[NYC_SKP]

17. Bern Baby Bern!

[Aerows]

21. I like that

Bern Baby Bern!!!

[peacebird]

61. #FeelTheBern love it!

[Aerows]

64. Yes!

[MohRokTah]

36. Kucinich did that in 2004.

So he's already sunk to pulling Kucinich level moves.

[A Simple Game]

83. You really are stuck on Dennis aren't you? Nobody is thinking Bernie is like Kucinich

you are just wasting your time.

I bet you still blame Nader for 2000 also don't you?

[Carewfan]

163. Nah he blames the purists...

[azmom]

129. From 26 to just 6? WTF

[AtomicKitten]

238. WTF indeed.

[Exilednight]

5. I'm with him.

[Koinos]

13. Does he intend to bypass or ignore the exclusivity clause stipulated for the democratic debates?

My understanding is that he could be shut out of the six official democratic debates if he debates elsewhere.

Does he intend to work to get that clause renegotiated? I think it was a dumb idea in the first place to limit debates to six sanctioned by the democratic committee.

[RobertEarl]

34. They dare not

If the elites shut Bernie out of the debates they will feel the wrath of the grassroots. Heck, maybe that is the medicine they need? Yep.

[MohRokTah]

37. WRONG!

He abides by the rules or he's out.

End of story.

[RobertEarl]

46. New rules

Sit back and watch. This Bernie stuff is a new day, a new way.

Less money, more democracy.

I am getting the impression you don't like democracy. Why is that?

[MohRokTah]

47. Yeah, they said the same about Kucinich, too.

[RobertEarl]

52. Somebody's hair is on fire!!

Bern Baby Bern!

[MohRokTah]

53. Certainly not mine.

I'm finding Bernie resorting to Kucinich tactics so early on highly amusing.

[Qutzupalotl]

249. or he calls for changing the rules.

Here's the quote:
“I believe we should be open to a less traditional form of debating by welcoming the opportunity to debate not only amongst members of the Democratic Party but also having debates between Democratic and Republican candidates during the primary process."

Does that sound like he wants to IGNORE or FLOUT the party rules, or is merely suggesting a change?

One would warrant a reaction such as yours, the other is what he said.

[MohRokTah]

250. Good luck with that.

[Qutzupalotl]

252. Whatever they're paying you, it's too much. n/t

[Aerows]

18. Hillary Clinton, the clear favorite

lost in 2008. Those that believe she is a sure thing should ponder that information.

That's not opinion - that's fact. She lost in 2008.

[workinclasszero]

60. Hillary lost to President Obama

I definitely don't see anyone running against Hillary this time on the same level as BHO.

Not even close.

[peacebird]

63. Bernie is getting THOUSANDS of enthusiastic people to his town halls... How is Hill doing?

[workinclasszero]

65. Still far ahead of all democratic challengers

And republicans in all polls to date.

[peacebird]

71. Polls at this point are meaningless, as of course you know...

[workinclasszero]

86. Oh cmon

If Bernie was at 60% in the latest national poll you guys would be crowing endlessly about it!

[peacebird]

104. Keep laughing, but Bernie has people on his side

[workinclasszero]

120. I'm sure he does

But he has proven nothing at all to me yet.

Can he hit 15% in the polls? 25%, 30 maybe?

So far he has done nothing but give a few speeches to a few groups of select people.

Nothing to get excited about IMHO.

[heaven05]

179. keep trying

you MIGHT get a few to listen, but I doubt it.

[workinclasszero]

185. Lol not worried about the Bernie Underground

Its a subset of a subset of a subset of democratic voters.

Talk is cheap but it is a lot of fun!

[heaven05]

186. oh never worry

it's more fun that way for me of the subset. HRC IS NOT the best we have to offer the struggling poor of all Party affiliation, LGBT, POC, seniors worried about their Medicare and Social Security. Go Bernie!

[Buns_of_Fire]

191. "...a few groups of select people."

So far as I can tell, Sen. Sanders isn't limiting his exposure to "select" people. And at least he isn't charging them for the opportunity to bask in the glow of his awesome wonderfulness.

HEATHROW, Fla. - Presidential candidate and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will be in Central Florida on Friday.

Clinton is attending a fundraising event at the home of prominent Orlando attorney John Morgan. The event takes place at Morgan's Heathrow mansion.

According to the Orlando Sentinel, the minimum donation for attendance is $2,700 to Clinton's campaign fund, which is the maximum allowable under federal law per election.

http://www.clickorlando.com/news/hillary-clinton-to-attend-central-florida-fundraiser/33281818

[peacebird]

212. Or only talking to handpicked groups....

[Luminous Animal]

251. What do you mean by "select people"? His rallies have been open to all. And he already has hit 15%.

[jeff47]

135. Well, a switch that massive would show a trend he could ride.

It wouldn't mean he'd get 60% in the general election. And he'd have to worry a lot about peaking too early. But a change that sudden would be a big Biden deal.

The absolute numbers in polls this early aren't helpful, because they are wrong more than 90% of the time. But the delta between each individual poll show who's campaign is working, and who's campaign is not working. Which gives a clue about what the actual results will be.

We know the current number is wrong. The deltas provide a clue about how the current numbers are wrong.

[heaven05]

176. +1000

[HooptieWagon]

84. She's giving speeches to dozens of Wall St CEOs

For millions of dollars.

[surrealAmerican]

22. It's an interesting idea ...

... although there is no chance of it happening. Imagine what it would be like if you had a series of one-on-one debates, each with one Dem vs. one Rep, with match ups determined randomly.

[Paka]

90. Awesome idea!

[chillfactor]

24. personally.....I would like to see the two parties debate.....

during the primary season....I think it would be a great show!

[rurallib]

25. I think it is a really good idea

Republicans playing to their far right wing, evangelical crazy base trying to win their primary while Democrats discuss real issues and offer real solutions on the same stage.

If I were Jebby or Randy et alia, I would run like crazy from this idea. The networks would also cringe knowing that their puppets will look like pure fools.

[Gloria]

32. Me, too...I love to have action like the British Parliament

No holds barred instead of staged, canned crap.

[Nye Bevan]

28. What a weird concept.

The primaries are all about picking the best Democrat to get the nomination out of the Democrats running. Why in the world should Republicans be included at this point? What is a snarling Ted Cruz going to contribute to a debate to help us decide who should get the Democratic nomination?

[RobertEarl]

54. Democracy is not a weird concept.

What Bernie is asking for is more democracy.

[KingCharlemagne]

99. Definitely agree with you that it seems weird, but Cruz in your scenario would function

as a foil to the sane candidates, allowing their sanity to reflect off his craziness. See any Shakespeare play for an example of how a 'foil' works to illuminate the real characters of the characters.

[joeybee12]

29. That's ridiculous...

Over a year prior to selecting the nominee? I have a better idea, let's not elect a President and just have continous campaigning, because it's almost at that point now and Bernie's idea just makes it worse.

[gwheezie]

30. I'm against this idea

The presence of tgop will make for assholery. Let them have their own clown show, dems should not be on the same stage with them.

[MohRokTah]

58. It sounds more like Anarchy tha Democratic Socialism. eom

[heaven05]

174. you're stretching

telling, really telling.

[libdem4life]

49. I hear TLC has a slot open...I like the idea of a Meet the Candidate Reality Show.

Get Stephen Colbert to host it.

Beats Meet the Molested and the Molesters and the Poor Little Innocents..

[orpupilofnature57]

56. If you told the forefathers Debates for Presidential elections were

exclusive events, they'd wonder why we'd debate at all .

[workinclasszero]

91. If you told the forefathers that slavery was outlawed

they would be shocked!

[dlwickham]

110. I think they'd be more shocked about women getting the right to vote

and would fall over with the idea of a woman president

[workinclasszero]

123. That too!!

[orpupilofnature57]

139. And would be shocked to hear what her idea of Democracy was .

[dlwickham]

199. what is her idea of democracy

please share

[orpupilofnature57]

211. That's it " Please Share " Her Transparency only exists when she's exposed,

She and Alexander Hamilton Share the same Idea, Use it (Democracy) to Rise from Common beginnings, and once there cut off all but the those who can help them live Their American dream .

[dlwickham]

216. didn't realize Hillary had so much power as to block millions of people from bettering themselves

is she in charge of some secret group that's actually in charge of the world? Illuminati? Bilderberg maybe?

[orpupilofnature57]

234. Where did you get that ? Comparing her to Alexander Hamilton

another upstart that usurped the will of the people . She doesn't have power to block millions of people, and I think we should leave it that way, if you think the animosity toward is bad here, wait till the RePukers get to her .

[orpupilofnature57]

138. If you told them about the TPP, they'd say it wasn't .

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

69. Why not? Informed voters are good for the country.

Whenever the people are well informed, they can be trusted with their own government; that whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them to rights.

 Thomas Jefferson quotes 

[think]

89. Apparently if you can't discuss all the issues facing America in 6 debates you're boring

Or something....

[RufusTFirefly]

92. But not for the Powers that Be

Bread and Circuses are the order of the day

Ultimately it's going to come down to who has the best hair or wears the most appropriate lapel pin. The last thing "they" want is an election where issues are the focus.

[peecoolyour]

85. George Washington would probably endorse this idea.

“However (political parties) may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.”

[Historic NY]

94. Great a never ending campaign of twits and wit....

how many Republicans.....

[workinclasszero]

98. I sincerely hope the democratic party

does not start up their own version of the Republican clown car.

100 debates with every crackpot that's selling a book or just craves the free publicity is not a higher form of democracy.

Its a freak show!

[Thinkingabout]

107. Agreed, when I hear Bernie wants a free for all, I see him as marginalizing the DNC.

Maybe he needs to run with the clown car. If he expects respect then he needs to respect Democrats.

[druidity33]

119. Amazing how

when Bernie says, "We need a lot more debates in this campaign"... it translates to:

"Bernie wants a free for all"

[gwheezie]

131. more Dem debates are fine

Letting the tgop freak show in makes no sense.

[workinclasszero]

158. " when I hear Bernie wants a free for all, I see him as marginalizing the DNC."

Yeah, how about that?

Hmm......

[RobertEarl]

188. Oh noes!! Not the DNC!!!

Can you believe Bernie would go after the all powerful and all knowing and perfect DNC?!?!?!

What's wrong with him? Doesn't he know his place? Gawd save us from such a radical that wants to increase democracy.

*********

Really... what's with some of you who don't want more democracy? Because that's what more debate is .... more democracy. I am kind of ashamed of some folks' posts on these threads - trying to tell everyone else to sit down, shut up and follow the rules that the DNC has trickled down on us. Clue, people: It ain't their party, it is OUR party.

[MohRokTah]

202. The DNC is the governing body of the Democratic National Party

Don't like it?

You should have gotten heavily involved on the local level years ago.

But you didn't.

Instead, you post on the internet.

[RobertEarl]

210. I get you

You are a Hillary supporter and you are devastated by the fact that someone is actually CHALLENGING her. I feel your pain.

That would explain why you have posted 20-30 times here stating the same thing over and over.

But you make for a poor representative for the HRC campaign.

[TheKentuckian]

255. The DNC needs to be marginalized so good.

[TexasTowelie]

132. I'm against this idea and I'm also of favor of only six debates.

We could learn something from the GOP in 2012. The more debates there are means the more likely a gaffe is made which turns into a soundbite for the opposition to televise throughout the rest of the election season.

Also, by the sixth debate we have usually heard all that we are going to hear from the candidates and very little else that is noteworthy occurs. I believe that it actually turns off voters out of sheer monotony.

[jeff47]

136. There were 34 Democratic primary debates in 2008.

6 were sponsored by the DNC. The rest were sponsored by various local organizations.

We should not be demanding candidates skip all those local debates in order to be in the national debates.

[Marr]

168. The party is trying so hard to custom fit this election to Hillary Clinton, it's just sad. /nt

[HooptieWagon]

196. Yep. Same as 2008.

I was disgusted at all the lies coming from Bill Nelson and DWS on behalf of Hillary. No way was I supporting her after that, although our primary didn't count anyway (which was orchestrated by party Dems, NOT the republicans, despite the lies that were spread about that).

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

178. Oh, dear!! The candidates might slip off their scripts!!

And, of course, the Republicans never, ever, perish the thought, make gaffes.

[DCBob]

171. Not a bad idea but doubt it would happen.

[bluestateguy]

177. Interleague play

Cute

[LWolf]

182. So do I.

And I want all of those debates to allow every participant to answer every question, and to guarantee them equal talk time.

I'm democratic that way.

[quadrature]

197. debates... sitting or standing?

how tall is Bernie?

[Koinos]

198. I'm confused.

Why would Bernie want to debate sixteen (or more) batshit crazy clowns during the democratic primary? Or would he invite only Ted Cruz and Scott Walker? The democratic primary provides an opportunity for democrats to sharpen and consolidate their ideas through rational discussion. It would be like inviting asylum inmates to a Noam Chomsky seminar. The education of the public about shared and different democratic ideals would not be advanced.

[backscatter712]

207. Interesting. The Republicans will never agree to it.

They know that they can't go toe-to-toe with those who speak truth to power.

[jwirr]

209. Has this ever happened before? During a Primary?

[loyalsister]

214. Interesting idea

but not very practical. Including multiple Dem and GOP candidates would clutter our message. I think that a clear understanding of the party differences is important, and it's more difficult to see them when there is not time devoted exclusively to the different primary party candidates.

When it comes to having more debates, I can see why someone would think it would be the more the better, but again it would make it more difficult remember details.

But, if there were more debates and they were all narrowly topic specific it might not be so bad.

[NYC Liberal]

215. Why the hell should REPUBLICANS participate in a debate in our primary?

The purpose of a primary is for party members to choose the party's nominee.

Republicans have no business in our debates.

[jeff47]

237. Because our candidate will go on to face the Republicans in the general election.

Might be nice to see how our options do against their options before selecting our candidate.

[NYC Liberal]

244. Nope, I don't think we need the clown car stinking up our primary.

And why help Republicans out — since any benefit to our candidates would also help theirs.

[jeff47]

246. It would only help them out if they did well.

Given the three candidates I expect to be significant in the race, the Republicans will not do well.

since any benefit to our candidates would also help theirs.

If Clinton made Cruz look like a fool, that isn't going to help Cruz.

[Gregorian]

225. Wow, who thought open dialog and sharing of candidates views would be so controversial?

Why not have no debates? Why not keep the candidates' opinions a secret from us? After all, this is only an election for one of the most powerful people on the planet at a time when our country and our planet are both at an inflection point.

I'm seeing a lot of fear on this "underground" forum.

[MisterP]

230. didn't you get Skinner's memo? "underground" means just that we're really against

Dubya

not any of his policies

[JustAnotherGen]

226. I wouldn't watch them

Democratic Primary Presidential debates are one of the few places we can see the wide field of thoughts on display in our big tent without a bunch of foul mouthed idiots interjecting with nonsense.

[Koinos]

227. Agree

It would muddy the waters. And we'll get enough crazy from them in the general election.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

233. If Bernie wants to debate the Republicants now I am not opposed.

However I don't think they will let him.