'16 Democratic Nomination Thread

[GwynnInTheHall]

Yes, I will admit that, though they haven't appeared together yet.
You'd have to admit the DNC is slowly trying to run the clock out so Clinton can win this thing.The less people see/hear from the others, the better for her. No reason not to have more debates and it's beyond ridiculous that a vice-chair would get barred from attending for saying so.

Oh absolutely, the DNC want's Clinton and limiting debates is one way to minimize any damage that could be done to her.

Though I do understand having the focus on the candidates AT the debate, they can discuss the issue after it. That said, I'm sure the subject will be mentioned IN the debate by either Sanders or O'Malley.

[GwynnInTheHall]

You've created quite the fantasy world for yourself.

Your words cut like Valyrian steel................

[GwynnInTheHall]

Six is too many. Only two count. Even the Republicans are down to 6-7, with a couple being pretty iffy.

J

Six is only too many if you have nothing of substance to say.

[onejayhawk]

I'm thinking by Adults, he meant the candidates. You'll find asshats within both parties.

You do have to admit, the main democratic candidates have been civil with each other to date, that might change tonight, but even if it does, you won't see the level of immaturity and flat out idiocy that we have from most of the GOPs panel.

Six is too many. Only two count. Even the Republicans are down to 6-7, with a couple being pretty iffy.

Your words cut like Valyrian steel................

Admitting your problem is the first step.

J

[onejayhawk]

What about the chair of the DNC. Is she one of the adults?

J

[nots]

What happened to the cartoons?

[The Feral Slasher]

Yes, I will admit that, though they haven't appeared together yet.
You'd have to admit the DNC is slowly trying to run the clock out so Clinton can win this thing.The less people see/hear from the others, the better for her. No reason not to have more debates and it's beyond ridiculous that a vice-chair would get barred from attending for saying so.

I have seen articles indicating what you are saying. Supposedly limiting the number of debates and scheduling them at inopportune times so the audience will be limited. I'm hoping that if that is the intention it won't be effective.

[baldgriff]

I have seen articles indicating what you are saying. Supposedly limiting the number of debates and scheduling them at inopportune times so the audience will be limited. I'm hoping that if that is the intention it won't be effective.

If this is the case, then wouldnt it seem to suggest that Hillary may not be the best candidate.........

Both major parties are not interested in who the best candidate is - they are interested in how much money the whole dog and pony show circus will place in their coffers.

[onejayhawk]

What happened to the cartoons?

When Hillary drives the clown car, no one wants to draw it.

I have seen articles indicating what you are saying. Supposedly limiting the number of debates and scheduling them at inopportune times so the audience will be limited. I'm hoping that if that is the intention it won't be effective.

Tonight the Mets and Dodgers are playing. Just one example.

J

[GwynnInTheHall]

Six is too many. Only two count. Even the Republicans are down to 6-7, with a couple being pretty iffy.



Admitting your problem is the first step.

J

Well you're wrong and unfunny, but you know...no news here.

[swampdragon]

There are some interesting articles about the debates in the New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/live/first-de...T.nav=top-news

There is also another story about how to make the debates more useful -with many people weighing in

[Hornsby]

Yes, I will admit that, though they haven't appeared together yet.
You'd have to admit the DNC is slowly trying to run the clock out so Clinton can win this thing.The less people see/hear from the others, the better for her. No reason not to have more debates and it's beyond ridiculous that a vice-chair would get barred from attending for saying so.

The problem with this supposition is that HRC is an excellent debater, seeing her in a platform like this against a somewhat inexperienced Sanders is nothing but good for her. It all depends on how she handles the audience, which may be pro Bernie, and bernie has to hold on to his temper and not fly off the handle, as he's prone to do. Barring the vice chair is such an "ehhhh" thing that nobody really cares about.

But I agree that the bottom line is that anything more than about 4-5 debates in such a limited field is overkill, nothing more can be said or learned after that point.

[nots]

The problem with this supposition is that HRC is an excellent debater, seeing her in a platform like this against a somewhat inexperienced Sanders is nothing but good for her. It all depends on how she handles the audience, which may be pro Bernie, and bernie has to hold on to his temper and not fly off the handle, as he's prone to do. Barring the vice chair is such an "ehhhh" thing that nobody really cares about.

But I agree that the bottom line is that anything more than about 4-5 debates in such a limited field is overkill, nothing more can be said or learned after that point.

Maybe she will explain why she's now against the TPP agreement she helped to craft though I am certainly glad she is against that horrible agreent.

[Hornsby]

Maybe she will explain why she's now against the TPP agreement she helped to craft though I am certainly glad she is against that horrible agreent.

See, here's the thing, I never mind when people evolve to a better position on something. Some people call it-flip-flopping, and I think that's totally wrong...hell, if I stayed with every position I once had on thousands of issues I'd be a pretty poor excuse for a human being. That's one of the big issues with the new GOP, they demand litmus tests, and they don't EVER want their candidates to change their minds. Hell, Paul Ryan is now considered a moderate, damn near a liberal amongst the Tea partiers...perhaps he's just evolving over time, with experience.

[nots]

Meh..seems a little convenient to switch positions on an agreement you wrote because the guy on your left is surging in the polls. Maybe if she hadn't called it the 'gold standard ' of agreements.....maybe if she hadn't defended it 45 times I could swallow her suddenly becoming enlightened on the subject.
Again for the record.....I am glad she is currently against it and hope this remains her position throughout the campaign because it is a horrible agreement.