HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » After watching the Republ...

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 10:13 AM

After watching the Republican debate, I'm floored the Democrats aren't starting their debates.

So, I have an idea:

Why don't we all begin calling Debbie Wasserman Schultz's office AT LEAST ONCE EVERY DAY until debate dates are moved forward. October 13th is too late.

Her number is 202-225-7931, and I bet if 50 or 60 thousand people called every day, the debates would get scheduled.

What do you think?

226 replies, 8141 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 226 replies Author Time Post
Reply After watching the Republican debate, I'm floored the Democrats aren't starting their debates. (Original post)
PatrickforO Aug 2015 OP
FSogol Aug 2015 #1
PatrickforO Aug 2015 #3
FSogol Aug 2015 #8
Armstead Aug 2015 #40
FSogol Aug 2015 #96
Fred Sanders Aug 2015 #46
PatrickforO Aug 2015 #215
DesertRat Aug 2015 #179
ancianita Aug 2015 #187
pscot Aug 2015 #2
jonno99 Aug 2015 #5
virtualobserver Aug 2015 #9
JackInGreen Aug 2015 #13
KeepItReal Aug 2015 #59
Fred Sanders Aug 2015 #4
jeff47 Aug 2015 #7
Cali_Democrat Aug 2015 #73
jeff47 Aug 2015 #94
Cali_Democrat Aug 2015 #97
jeff47 Aug 2015 #101
Cali_Democrat Aug 2015 #104
jeff47 Aug 2015 #106
Cali_Democrat Aug 2015 #109
jeff47 Aug 2015 #110
Cali_Democrat Aug 2015 #111
jeff47 Aug 2015 #114
Cali_Democrat Aug 2015 #115
jeff47 Aug 2015 #117
Cali_Democrat Aug 2015 #118
jeff47 Aug 2015 #122
Cali_Democrat Aug 2015 #125
jeff47 Aug 2015 #126
Cali_Democrat Aug 2015 #127
jeff47 Aug 2015 #129
Cali_Democrat Aug 2015 #131
jeff47 Aug 2015 #132
Cali_Democrat Aug 2015 #133
jeff47 Aug 2015 #135
Cali_Democrat Aug 2015 #136
jeff47 Aug 2015 #140
Cali_Democrat Aug 2015 #141
jeff47 Aug 2015 #142
Cali_Democrat Aug 2015 #143
jeff47 Aug 2015 #144
Cali_Democrat Aug 2015 #146
jeff47 Aug 2015 #151
Cali_Democrat Aug 2015 #153
jeff47 Aug 2015 #156
Cali_Democrat Aug 2015 #158
jeff47 Aug 2015 #167
Cali_Democrat Aug 2015 #169
jeff47 Aug 2015 #170
Cali_Democrat Aug 2015 #172
jeff47 Aug 2015 #173
Cali_Democrat Aug 2015 #174
jeff47 Aug 2015 #175
Cali_Democrat Aug 2015 #176
jeff47 Aug 2015 #177
Cali_Democrat Aug 2015 #178
jeff47 Aug 2015 #180
Cali_Democrat Aug 2015 #182
jeff47 Aug 2015 #192
Cali_Democrat Aug 2015 #195
jeff47 Aug 2015 #197
Cali_Democrat Aug 2015 #201
jeff47 Aug 2015 #204
Cali_Democrat Aug 2015 #205
jeff47 Aug 2015 #207
Cali_Democrat Aug 2015 #208
Cha Aug 2015 #202
Cali_Democrat Aug 2015 #206
OilemFirchen Aug 2015 #181
jeff47 Aug 2015 #185
OilemFirchen Aug 2015 #186
Agschmid Aug 2015 #189
jeff47 Aug 2015 #191
Cali_Democrat Aug 2015 #193
jeff47 Aug 2015 #194
Cali_Democrat Aug 2015 #196
SwampG8r Aug 2015 #198
jeff47 Aug 2015 #199
SwampG8r Aug 2015 #203
Cali_Democrat Aug 2015 #210
Name removed Aug 2015 #148
jeff47 Aug 2015 #150
Cali_Democrat Aug 2015 #188
Agschmid Aug 2015 #190
Agschmid Aug 2015 #152
AtheistCrusader Aug 2015 #154
jeff47 Aug 2015 #157
AtheistCrusader Aug 2015 #159
Cali_Democrat Aug 2015 #162
Cali_Democrat Aug 2015 #161
jeff47 Aug 2015 #165
Cali_Democrat Aug 2015 #166
Cha Aug 2015 #214
Agschmid Aug 2015 #155
Juicy_Bellows Aug 2015 #116
Cali_Democrat Aug 2015 #120
jeff47 Aug 2015 #121
Juicy_Bellows Aug 2015 #123
jeff47 Aug 2015 #124
Agschmid Aug 2015 #138
Cha Aug 2015 #217
virtualobserver Aug 2015 #12
Fred Sanders Aug 2015 #15
virtualobserver Aug 2015 #23
7962 Aug 2015 #95
RobertEarl Aug 2015 #16
Fred Sanders Aug 2015 #18
RobertEarl Aug 2015 #20
SwampG8r Aug 2015 #200
NCTraveler Aug 2015 #22
RobertEarl Aug 2015 #30
NCTraveler Aug 2015 #31
RobertEarl Aug 2015 #32
NCTraveler Aug 2015 #37
RobertEarl Aug 2015 #47
NCTraveler Aug 2015 #52
RobertEarl Aug 2015 #57
NCTraveler Aug 2015 #62
RobertEarl Aug 2015 #65
NCTraveler Aug 2015 #71
RobertEarl Aug 2015 #74
NCTraveler Aug 2015 #75
RobertEarl Aug 2015 #83
NCTraveler Aug 2015 #85
RobertEarl Aug 2015 #86
NCTraveler Aug 2015 #87
RobertEarl Aug 2015 #90
NCTraveler Aug 2015 #92
7962 Aug 2015 #98
NCTraveler Aug 2015 #102
Fred Sanders Aug 2015 #36
RobertEarl Aug 2015 #51
ieoeja Aug 2015 #91
RobertEarl Aug 2015 #93
Armstead Aug 2015 #48
Sheepshank Aug 2015 #68
RobertEarl Aug 2015 #77
whatchamacallit Aug 2015 #34
Fred Sanders Aug 2015 #42
whatchamacallit Aug 2015 #55
frylock Aug 2015 #119
PatrickforO Aug 2015 #216
winter is coming Aug 2015 #6
frazzled Aug 2015 #14
winter is coming Aug 2015 #17
frazzled Aug 2015 #19
Agschmid Aug 2015 #33
winter is coming Aug 2015 #49
Agschmid Aug 2015 #53
jeff47 Aug 2015 #168
PatrickforO Aug 2015 #212
MADem Aug 2015 #10
kenfrequed Aug 2015 #56
MADem Aug 2015 #63
kenfrequed Aug 2015 #66
MADem Aug 2015 #79
kenfrequed Aug 2015 #89
MADem Aug 2015 #130
kenfrequed Aug 2015 #147
MADem Aug 2015 #164
daleanime Aug 2015 #11
whatthehey Aug 2015 #21
daleanime Aug 2015 #25
Agschmid Aug 2015 #39
daleanime Aug 2015 #69
Agschmid Aug 2015 #134
winter is coming Aug 2015 #27
daleanime Aug 2015 #70
Armstead Aug 2015 #50
daleanime Aug 2015 #72
Sheepshank Aug 2015 #24
daleanime Aug 2015 #26
Sheepshank Aug 2015 #29
daleanime Aug 2015 #67
Agschmid Aug 2015 #41
daleanime Aug 2015 #76
Agschmid Aug 2015 #35
daleanime Aug 2015 #81
Agschmid Aug 2015 #113
Cha Aug 2015 #218
Fred Sanders Aug 2015 #221
restorefreedom Aug 2015 #44
daleanime Aug 2015 #82
7962 Aug 2015 #139
Thinkingabout Aug 2015 #28
Doctor_J Aug 2015 #38
Agschmid Aug 2015 #43
Le Taz Hot Aug 2015 #222
Agschmid Aug 2015 #223
Le Taz Hot Aug 2015 #224
Agschmid Aug 2015 #225
restorefreedom Aug 2015 #45
Armstead Aug 2015 #54
RobertEarl Aug 2015 #58
Fred Sanders Aug 2015 #60
MADem Aug 2015 #64
Armstead Aug 2015 #108
mythology Aug 2015 #88
Armstead Aug 2015 #107
Agschmid Aug 2015 #145
Armstead Aug 2015 #183
Agschmid Aug 2015 #184
R. Daneel Olivaw Aug 2015 #61
liberal N proud Aug 2015 #78
Vincardog Aug 2015 #80
cp Aug 2015 #112
PatrickforO Aug 2015 #211
Politicalboi Aug 2015 #84
RobertEarl Aug 2015 #100
Historic NY Aug 2015 #220
RobertEarl Aug 2015 #226
jeff47 Aug 2015 #137
eridani Aug 2015 #219
George II Aug 2015 #99
fredamae Aug 2015 #103
Agschmid Aug 2015 #149
d_legendary1 Aug 2015 #160
DinahMoeHum Aug 2015 #105
jeff47 Aug 2015 #171
Smarmie Doofus Aug 2015 #128
napi21 Aug 2015 #163
DonCoquixote Aug 2015 #209
PatrickforO Aug 2015 #213

Response to PatrickforO (Original post)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 10:15 AM

1. Um, I think you should check out yesterday's news.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FSogol (Reply #1)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 10:17 AM

3. What about yesterday's news? That the first one isn't 'til Oct 13? That's too late, I'm thinking.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PatrickforO (Reply #3)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 10:22 AM

8. You call for the debates to be scheduled. They were scheduled yesterday. A debate in mid-September

would be great as would some specialized debates (on the environment or education). This doesn't seem like a "call congress right fucking now" moment to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FSogol (Reply #8)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 11:11 AM

40. Your candidate complained about the schedule

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Armstead (Reply #40)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 01:08 PM

96. So?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FSogol (Reply #8)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 11:16 AM

46. If you can't just be outraged over a thing, then you must actually argue your point. Outrage is all

they can offer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fred Sanders (Reply #46)

Sat Aug 8, 2015, 01:07 AM

215. The whole GOP message is based on fear.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PatrickforO (Reply #3)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 04:34 PM

179. Why is Oct. 13th too late?

It's four months before the 1st caucus and primaries.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DesertRat (Reply #179)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 06:55 PM

187. I'd like to know, that, too. This gives time for GOP mass stupidity to sink in with the public.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PatrickforO (Original post)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 10:16 AM

2. who do we have to call to get rid of

Debbie Wasserman Schultz?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pscot (Reply #2)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 10:19 AM

5. Chuckles...nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pscot (Reply #2)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 10:22 AM

9. the Hillary National Committee, previously known as the DNC n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to virtualobserver (Reply #9)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 10:30 AM

13. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pscot (Reply #2)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 11:33 AM

59. Does 411 have that number?

I could use it also

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PatrickforO (Original post)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 10:18 AM

4. A common mistake is thinking whatever that was by Fox last night was a "debate".

6 actually debates is plenty enough....versus a million cattle calls.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fred Sanders (Reply #4)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 10:20 AM

7. 4 debates. Not 6.

16 states will vote before the last two debates.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #7)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 12:10 PM

73. Wait....I thought there were going to be 6 debates

 

Now its 4?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Reply #73)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 01:07 PM

94. The last two are scheduled for after 16 states vote.

"Super Tuesday" is March 1st. At the end of "Super Tuesday", 16 states will have voted.

The last two debates are scheduled for "February/March". So far, the DNC has always gone with the later time with anything related to debates - From announcing the rules to announcing the schedule to the schedule itself. Assuming this pattern continues (and there's no reason to not do so), that means thoste last 2 debates will be in March, not February. And with the IA, NH, SC and NV elections in February, cramming those two debates into February will be very difficult.

And by that point, it is very unusual for the result to still be "up in the air". Making the last 2 debates moot.

At a minimum, IA and NH will only get 4. Getting a debate in between Feb 1 and Feb 9 is not going to happen. SC and NV have a very slim chance of getting debate 5 before they vote. But if it doesn't happen before NV, there's no way it's going to happen before "Super Tuesday". There is no way they will get a 6th in before March 1st.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #94)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 01:10 PM

97. So there are 6 DNC-sanctioned debates. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Reply #97)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 01:12 PM

101. Only if you pretend the last two will not be canceled. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #101)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 01:15 PM

104. So the last two are already scheduled to be canceled? Link? nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Reply #104)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 01:20 PM

106. Already explained above.

Here, I'll quote myself. Perhaps you'll trouble your beautiful mind enough to read it this time.

"Super Tuesday" is March 1st. At the end of "Super Tuesday", 16 states will have voted.

The last two debates are scheduled for "February/March". So far, the DNC has always gone with the later time with anything related to debates - From announcing the rules to announcing the schedule to the schedule itself. Assuming this pattern continues (and there's no reason to not do so), that means thoste last 2 debates will be in March, not February. And with the IA, NH, SC and NV elections in February, cramming those two debates into February will be very difficult.

And by that point, it is very unusual for the result to still be "up in the air". Making the last 2 debates moot.

At a minimum, IA and NH will only get 4. Getting a 5th debate in between Feb 1 and Feb 9 is not going to happen. SC and NV have a very slim chance of getting debate 5 before they vote. But if it doesn't happen before NV, there's no way it's going to happen before "Super Tuesday". There is no way they will get a 6th in before March 1st.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #106)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 01:23 PM

109. So there are still 6 DNC-sanctioned debates. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Reply #109)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 01:24 PM

110. If you think tax cuts always create a booming economy, yes.

If you actually believe in reality instead of press releases, no.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #110)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 01:26 PM

111. So there are 4 debates. Do you have a link? I want to know why the DNC cancelled two of them. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Reply #111)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 02:16 PM

114. Perhaps you could pull out a calendar and try to follow along.

There are 4 debates scheduled before IA votes on February 1st. So unless you are handing out time machines, IA only sees 4 debates.

NH votes on February 9th. It will be extremely difficult to fit a debate in those 8 days, because the candidates are going to be campaigning like crazy in NH and the 5th debate is in Miami.

SC votes on February 20th. So there is a slim chance the Miami debate can be stuffed in those 11 days.

NV votes on February 23rd. There is no possible way to schedule a debate in those 3 days.

That leaves February 24th-29th before Super Tuesday on March 1st. It will be extremely hard to squeeze a debate into those 6 days with 12 more states to campaign in, none of which are Florida or Wisconsin (debate 6).

So getting at least a 5th debate in before March 1st is very difficult. Getting a 6th debate in is impossible.

So unless you think one candidate standing at a podium is a debate, there will not be 6 debates.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #114)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 02:19 PM

115. The DNC said there will be 6 debates. I heard nothing about 4. Link? nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Reply #115)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 02:25 PM

117. So, you can't handle basic math then?

I've explained it to you several time. Do you need me to draw a picture? Perhaps look up flight times between NH and Miami to demonstrate that traveling there for a debate takes away too much time?

Of course not. This current situation favors your candidate, so math does not matter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #117)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 02:28 PM

118. If the DNC changed their mind, I would like to know about it. Link? nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Reply #118)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 02:37 PM

122. Why do you think the DNC changed their mind? I never said they did.

If the DNC decided to schedule the 5th and 6th debates for March 2018, would you continue to claim there will be 6 debates?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #122)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 03:02 PM

125. So there actually are 6 scheduled debates. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Reply #125)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 03:04 PM

126. Nope. There are 4 debates. There are 2 more meaningless debates.

Gotten your alert to stick yet?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #126)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 03:06 PM

127. Yesterday the DNC said 6. Do you have a link to where they changed it to 4? nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Reply #127)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 03:07 PM

129. Yes.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=499838

Or would you count a debate scheduled for 2018?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #129)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 03:09 PM

131. Nothing in that link says the DNC changed the number from 6 to 4. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to jeff47 (Reply #132)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 03:17 PM

133. Nothing in that link says the DNC changed the number of sanctioned debates from 6 to 4. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Reply #133)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 03:20 PM

135. Oh, well maybe this one will help explain why.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=499838

Btw, you do realize you keep effectively bumping this thread, and lots and lots more people are seeing that the DNC is being dishonest about getting 6 debates in before the primaries, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #135)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 03:22 PM

136. Still nothing saying DNC changed the number of sanctioned debates from 6 to 4. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Reply #136)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 03:26 PM

140. Oh. Well maybe this one will explain the problem.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=499684

Btw, thanks for all the extra attention you are providing to this point. Not a lot of people bothered to do the math on how 6 debates would fit in. So I'm seeing a lot more "6 is plenty" people now realizing that the DNC is playing them.

Without your tireless efforts to cut-and-paste instead of reading and properly responding to my posts, fewer people would have put two and two together and become upset about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #140)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 03:27 PM

141. The DNC said they will sanction 6 debates, not 4. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Reply #141)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 03:30 PM

142. And there's a problem with their schedule. As explained by this link.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #142)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 03:31 PM

143. Nothing @ that link says the DNC changed the number of sanctioned debates. Still @ 6. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Reply #143)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 03:33 PM

144. Hence the word "problem".

See, words actually have meaning. So saying there is a problem and then illustrating the problem isn't something that can be refuted by saying "nuh-uh" over and over again.

But "nuh-uh" over and over again is great at letting more people know there is a problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #144)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 03:37 PM

146. You said there will be 4 debates. The DNC has said there will be 6 sanctioned debates, not 4. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Reply #146)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 03:43 PM

151. Despite what the DNC is currently claiming, there will be 4 debates.

And I explained above why there will be 4 debates. Time.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=499838

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #151)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 03:46 PM

153. DNC said 6, not 4. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Reply #153)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 03:55 PM

156. Holy crap, I'm the DNC?! Oh wait...I'm not.

There will be 4 debates unless you have a time machine.

Do you have a time machine? 'Cause that would be handy. Clinton could go back and tell herself not to vote for the Iraq war or help destroy the safety net.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #156)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 03:56 PM

158. The DNC said there will be 6 debates. I heard nothing about 4. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Reply #158)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 04:08 PM

167. Except repeatedly in this thread. Complete with a discussion of how the DNC

can't fit 6 into the schedule.

So far, your response is to insist I am speaking for the DNC.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #167)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 04:11 PM

169. There is no actual proof in this thread that the DNC changed the number from 6 to 4. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Reply #169)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 04:13 PM

170. Good thing I never claimed they did!!

Instead, I pointed out they will not be able to fit in the last two debates before they are irrelevant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #170)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 04:17 PM

172. You said there will be 4. DNC said 6. You have no link to back up your claim. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Reply #172)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 04:25 PM

173. I would only need a link if I was claiming the DNC said 4.

But I never claimed the DNC said 4. Instead, I used basic math to point out there is not enough time to get 6 debates in before Super Tuesday.

Then I used the historical information that the vast majority of open presidential primaries are decided when the results of Super Tuesday come in.

You put those two together, and quickly realize that 2 of the 6 debates can not happen before they are irrelevant - one candidate standing behind a podium is not a debate. Then you add in a little bit more of history, and find out that the DNC usually cancels any "late" debates once they are irrelevant.

Now, just how many times do you want to lie about what I wrote?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #173)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 04:26 PM

174. You said the DNC will only have 4 (no proof provided). DNC says 6. Who to believe?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Reply #174)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 04:27 PM

175. How 'bout the one who actually shows you a schedule

instead of "February/March"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #175)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 04:29 PM

176. DNC says 6, and they will release additional details. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Reply #176)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 04:31 PM

177. They have released details. Their details do not allow enough time to get all 6 in.

As pointed out by the schedule I discussed.

How'd we do in the 2014 elections? Because the DNC said we would do well. So if the DNC said we would do well, we must have done well, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #177)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 04:33 PM

178. Details so far:

 

A total of six debates are scheduled, with six different sponsors: Oct. 13 in Nevada (hosted by CNN); Nov. 14 in Des Moines, Iowa (CBS/KCCI and The Des Moines Register); Dec. 19 in Manchester, New Hampshire (ABC/WMUR); Jan. 17 in Charleston, South Carolina (NBC/Congressional Black Caucus Institute); and two scheduled for either February or March in Miami, Florida, and Wisconsin, hosted by Univision/The Washington Post and PBS, respectively. The DNC said it would release additional details about debate dates, locations and partnerships soon.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/democrats-debate-schedule-nevada-october-13-121092.html?ml=po

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Reply #178)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 04:41 PM

180. And I pointed out there is not enough time in February to fit in 2 debates.

And that fitting in one debate would be extremely difficult.

March 1st is Super Tuesday. So if this primary is like the vast majority of non-incumbent primaries, we will know the nominee on March 2nd. Making further debates irrelevant. And in the past, the DNC canceled debates after they were irrelevant.

Btw, that's why they don't have specific dates and times for debates 5 and 6 yet. There's little reason to expect them to occur.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #180)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 05:01 PM

182. Who to believe, the DNC or an anonymous poster on the interwebz. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Reply #182)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 11:34 PM

192. Well, who's got the better track record?

DNC said 2010 and 2014 would be great for Democrats. How'd they do?

Also, you could attempt to point out where the debates would actually fit....but that runs into the problem of them not fitting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #192)

Sat Aug 8, 2015, 12:03 AM

195. You're nothing more than an anonymous poster with no proof to back your claim. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Reply #195)

Sat Aug 8, 2015, 12:10 AM

197. Then it would be so easy for you to show where those two debates fit in.

Heck, you could even address the fact that Iowa only gets to see 4 debates before they vote while you're doing it.

Instead, you just keep shouting "nuh-uh!!!!!"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #197)

Sat Aug 8, 2015, 12:39 AM

201. DNC says 6 sanctioned debates, not 4:

 

A total of six debates are scheduled, with six different sponsors: Oct. 13 in Nevada (hosted by CNN); Nov. 14 in Des Moines, Iowa (CBS/KCCI and The Des Moines Register); Dec. 19 in Manchester, New Hampshire (ABC/WMUR); Jan. 17 in Charleston, South Carolina (NBC/Congressional Black Caucus Institute); and two scheduled for either February or March in Miami, Florida, and Wisconsin, hosted by Univision/The Washington Post and PBS, respectively. The DNC said it would release additional details about debate dates, locations and partnerships soon.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/democrats-debate-schedule-nevada-october-13-121092.html?ml=po

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Reply #201)

Sat Aug 8, 2015, 12:42 AM

204. And their schedule does not allow all 6 to occur.

Yet you keep acting as if their statement somehow will alter time and space so that they can occur.

So either the DNC has discovered some exciting new physics, or those debates will not occur.

Yet you keep desperately clinging to the statement. Did we win in 2014 when the DNC said we would? Do you insist we won both Houses of Congress?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #204)

Sat Aug 8, 2015, 12:44 AM

205. Yet you provide no proof the DNC has cancelled any of the debates. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Reply #205)

Sat Aug 8, 2015, 12:49 AM

207. Do you not understand the difference between future tense and past tense?

What part of "will" do you think means "already has"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #207)

Sat Aug 8, 2015, 12:50 AM

208. Do you not understand the difference between 6 and 4? nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Reply #195)

Sat Aug 8, 2015, 12:40 AM

202. Your patience is astoundingly admirable with dealing with CT, Cali!



rolf 6 debates!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cha (Reply #202)

Sat Aug 8, 2015, 12:45 AM

206. Thank you. I try my best

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #173)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 04:50 PM

181. "Basic math"

John has six peanuts. He eats four, then discovers he is allergic. He throws the remaining two peanuts away.

Ergo, there were only four peanuts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OilemFirchen (Reply #181)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 06:14 PM

185. Would only be relevant if "throwing them away" caused them to not exist.

But since debates are not physical objects, the analogy does not work well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #185)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 06:38 PM

186. It's not an analogy.

Doesn't matter, though. What you posted is not mathematics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OilemFirchen (Reply #186)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 09:42 PM

189. Yup.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OilemFirchen (Reply #186)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 11:33 PM

191. First, counting is still math.

Second, you might have noticed I also posted the number of days between two dates. Using this amazing mathematics called "subtraction".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #191)

Sat Aug 8, 2015, 12:00 AM

193. You still have no real proof the number of DNC-sanctioned debates fell from 6 to 4. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Reply #193)

Sat Aug 8, 2015, 12:03 AM

194. Do you have a time machine? 'Cause that's about the only way to fit them in. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #194)

Sat Aug 8, 2015, 12:04 AM

196. Still no real proof the number of sanctioned debates fell from 6 to 4. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #173)

Sat Aug 8, 2015, 12:25 AM

198. I'm kind of stupid let's see if I get what you are saying

You are saying the DNC has 6 scheduled but only 4 of them will matter as the last 2 happen after super Tuesday rendering them little impact.
I bet I got it .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SwampG8r (Reply #198)

Sat Aug 8, 2015, 12:31 AM

199. Almost. I'm saying the last two will be canceled after Super Tuesday. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #199)

Sat Aug 8, 2015, 12:40 AM

203. OK I hadn't taken an outright

Cancellation into it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SwampG8r (Reply #203)

Sat Aug 8, 2015, 12:58 AM

210. The notion that two will be cancelled is nothing more than speculation with a little CT

 

thrown in for good measure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #144)


Response to Name removed (Reply #148)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 03:42 PM

150. Oh, she knows. She's far too smart to not understand.

But constantly replying causes this thread to pop back up to the top of the GD: P forum, resulting in greater exposure. So I'm happy to keep pointing out the same problems to that wider and wider audience.

Besides, I got a few passes to refine the post in order to better express the point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #150)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 07:24 PM

188. Looks like your buddy just got banned. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Reply #188)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 09:44 PM

190. Yup.

"Previously banned"... Shocker.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Name removed (Reply #148)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 03:44 PM

152. Welcome to DU.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #144)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 03:52 PM

154. Jury Results.

On Fri Aug 7, 2015, 03:41 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Hence the word "problem".
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=500040

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

This poster is being an ass. The other poster has said nothing personal but this poster keeps insulting the other. Stop this petty crap, please review the subthread and see how the personal insults are one sided. Please hide this post and help stop the hate.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Fri Aug 7, 2015, 03:51 PM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: These "back-and-forth" so-called posts are boring and eventually leads to someone stepping over the line. Hard to see how this particular post is nothing more than another retort in a long line (16 I count) of retorts.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Frivolous alert. Stop wasting people's time.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No insult. I don't like alerts where the alert text is a lie.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Frivolous alert. Even if the post is abrasive, it doesn't reach the threshold to hide, not even close.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #154)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 03:55 PM

157. Yeah, it became pretty obvious she was clicking alert on each one. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #157)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 03:57 PM

159. Not anymore. (For the next 24h anyway)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #159)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 03:58 PM

162. Wasn't my alert. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #157)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 03:57 PM

161. I haven't alerted a single one of your posts in this thread. Also, I'm a he. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Reply #161)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 04:02 PM

165. My apologies. I had you confused with someone else. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #165)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 04:05 PM

166. Apology accepted, but still no link proving the DNC changed the number from 6 to 4. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Reply #161)

Sat Aug 8, 2015, 01:06 AM

214. But, he was soooooooo Sure.. just like the "4 debates instead of 6" theory

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #117)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 03:53 PM

155. Making personal again...

Not needed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Reply #111)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 02:23 PM

116. I don't mean to jump in here between you two but there is no need to be obtuse.

After 16 states have voted the outcome will likely be decided rendering the last two debates meaningless.

Are there 6 scheduled, yes. Are two of them scheduled too late to be of any use, most likely yes.

Cheers!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Juicy_Bellows (Reply #116)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 02:33 PM

120. So there are 6 scheduled debates. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Juicy_Bellows (Reply #116)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 02:36 PM

121. It's a mistake to believe she doesn't understand. She's fishing for a hide. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #121)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 02:41 PM

123. Well I tried.

I've learned my lesson.

Cheers!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Juicy_Bellows (Reply #123)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 02:49 PM

124. Thanks for trying. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #106)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 03:22 PM

138. Betcha it felt real nice to get that insult in.

Well played...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Agschmid (Reply #138)

Sat Aug 8, 2015, 01:12 AM

217. that's their MO.. must think it helps getting their point across.. when actually is says everything

about them and absolutely nothing about their target.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fred Sanders (Reply #4)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 10:28 AM

12. plenty enough for Hillary

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to virtualobserver (Reply #12)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 10:33 AM

15. Common mistake thinking last night was a "debate". Seriously, it is early August, 2015. 2015.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fred Sanders (Reply #15)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 10:46 AM

23. The exclusivity rule is totalitarian, not Democratic

 

People in the various primary states are upset with the DNC.....If someone in Iowa or any other state wants to hold a debate next week, Democratic candidates are forbidden to attend it unless they want to be excluded from the main DNC debates.

"Seriously"...... "Common mistake thinking" is that any of this is "Democratic"





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to virtualobserver (Reply #23)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 01:07 PM

95. Good point

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fred Sanders (Reply #4)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 10:34 AM

16. Cattle calls?

 

So now you consider people exercising their right of Free Speech to just be cattle calls?

Thanks, Fred. Now we know what you think of people exercising their rights.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Reply #16)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 10:37 AM

18. You think last night was a "debate"? On Planet Propaganda, maybe!

That is one shabby strawmen you got propped up there.

Last night was a cattle call, twisting that fact to attack the DNC, or me, or making it about "freedom of speech" is just gauche.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fred Sanders (Reply #18)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 10:42 AM

20. Are you lost?

 

The topic is calling DWS and exercising our right of free speech, and you stated that 6 debates is enough, and that our 'Cattle calls' to DWS is somehow not wanted by you.

We get now what you think of the Democratic idea. It's all just cattle calls to you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Reply #20)

Sat Aug 8, 2015, 12:39 AM

200. I think

You misunderstand the phrase cattle call
A cattle call is an entertainment industry term meaning open audition.
The poster you are replying to meant the GOP debates were like an open audition and by limiting the number of debates we avoid looking the same.
He is still wrong but for completely different reasons

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fred Sanders (Reply #18)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 10:46 AM

22. Their reply really gives a glimpse of the thought process of some...

 

that they normally aren't willing to outright state like they did here. Very interesting to say the least. Their thoughts on bringing free speech into it also give some insight as to where they are coming from. A lack of understanding.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NCTraveler (Reply #22)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 10:57 AM

30. eh?

 

It's all about free speech. There, there is your lesson for today. I can only hope you give it due consideration.

I quite understand that many hate the idea that we exercise free speech. As for me, I'm all for more and more free speech and more debates.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Reply #30)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 11:01 AM

31. Just going to leave this one stand. No comment necessary. nt.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NCTraveler (Reply #31)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 11:06 AM

32. See ya

 

I notice you always come out on the short end of debates with me, so I don't blame you for hiding away.

That is a wise decision you have made to not try and go head to head with me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Reply #32)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 11:09 AM

37. "I notice you always come out on the short end of debates with me, so I don't blame you for hiding."

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NCTraveler (Reply #37)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 11:16 AM

47. You must wonder

 

Why is it you can't debate me? Why is it you go off on tangents and not take a stand?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Reply #47)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 11:22 AM

52. I won't take time to educate adults about free speech on a progressive message board.

 

I believe people posting here in honest are very well educated on it. I see no reason to teach it to you. Lessons can be found online all over the place. It is not that I can't debate you, it's just something I learned in elementary school and have no interest in teaching you. Since you are directly asking me about personally debating you, I will simply say I have never seen you debate someone in fairness. You simply don't do it. I have wasted too much time here. Have a wonderful day and I do love your passion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NCTraveler (Reply #52)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 11:29 AM

57. How many times have you replied to me in posts?

 

Many, many times. Like you are in my fan club. You claim: "never seen you debate in fairness". Now look who is getting personal with their attacks!!

Again, you dance around, not getting to any point, yet taking a dig at me and even go so far as trying to lecture me while avoiding any true discussion or debate.

As for me, expect that from now on when you do reply to me, I will do as I have done here, today. Usually I just ignore you. Not any more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Reply #57)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 11:51 AM

62. "How many times have you replied to me in posts?"

 

As of now, one more time than you have responded to me. I understand this is about "fans" for you. It is not for me. "Now look who is getting personal with their attacks!! " What does that have to do with anything, and where, in this line of posts, have I even mentioned it. That is your debate style. Strawman after strawman.

"Usually I just ignore you. Not any more."

I don't remember you ever not replying to a post of mine directed at you. As you won't here either. Another strawman. Might have happened once, but you just don't have it in you, no matter how wrong you are.

Instead of typing, look up free speech. It will help a lot and you will see there is simply no debate to be had here. You clubbed the term "free speech" with a bat.

"The topic is calling DWS and exercising our right of free speech"

No, it isn't.

"It's all about free speech."

Again, a complete lack of understanding.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026634558

I do love your passion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NCTraveler (Reply #62)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 12:00 PM

65. Yes it is

 

I feel awful adopting your style of debate, but like I said, I will no longer ignore you. First I have to come down to your level? Ewwwww.

I wrote : ""The topic is calling DWS and exercising our right of free speech"

You wrote "No, it isn't" ..... What kind of debate is that? You should read the OP again, apparently for the first time. It clearly states that we exercise our free speech by calling the PTB and demanding more debates. Clearly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Reply #65)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 12:08 PM

71. +1

 

Love your passion.

"I will no longer ignore you." lol I had no clue I had been ignored.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NCTraveler (Reply #71)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 12:11 PM

74. I am tired of it

 

So from now on expect a reply that contains the proper amount of due respect for you.

As again we see you have no honest debate, you just bait.

I think you may be looking in the mirror when you attack me?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Reply #74)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 12:16 PM

75. +1

 



I'm not debating you. I have said that. You are bringing much needed levity to my Friday afternoon. I appreciate it. As I said, your original comment stands on its own. I simply don't need to debate it. I find your litany of assumptions and thoughts on free speech to be amusing. Still wondering when you ignored me. lol. Love your passion. Thanks for the smile.

"the proper amount of due respect for you." I never made a request for your respect and don't really care to have it. Not sure why that would be pertinent to anything. I also don't care about any perceived personal attack as you keep mentioning. In my direction or yours. It just isn't as significant to me as it is you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NCTraveler (Reply #75)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 12:25 PM

83. Not significant?

 

Then why do you keep replying?

Like I said, I'm done ignoring your remarks to me.

As once again everyone here sees, you are not even on topic and you have no reasonable level of any debate about the topic. Your first post here was just an attack on me and it wasn't even a reply to me.

I am renting space in your head, it is obvious.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Reply #83)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 12:31 PM

85. "I am renting space in your head, it is obvious. "

 

I love this. Rent isn't really expensive at that location.

"Then why do you keep replying? "

Comedy gold. So, you will simply reply to anything I put. This could become even more fun.

Love the Friday afternoon smile and your passion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NCTraveler (Reply #85)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 12:36 PM

86. You got that right

 

"Rent isn't really expensive at that location."

That's why I used to ignore you. Well, I have decided to end that in hope you will stop with your off topic, personal attack comments.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Reply #86)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 12:40 PM

87. I missed my personal attacks.

 

"That's why I used to ignore you."

I just don't remember a time when you did ignore me. I can handle a follower. Specially if it is amusing to me. Or, should I say non-ignorer so it doesn't rise to the level of personal attack.




"Rent isn't really expensive at that location."

Shit, might even be free room and board.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NCTraveler (Reply #87)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 12:48 PM

90. You deny what is right here?

 

"Rent isn't really expensive at that location."

I think that says it all right there. You have described your space better than I ever could. That is why, until now, all your replies to me for months have been ignored.

Gonna keep digging?

*******************

Dear DU readers, I do apologize for this exchange with NC here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Reply #90)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 12:55 PM

92. Not just cheap, possible free to the right tenant.

 

Any chance I could get you to not ignore me here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251499048

and here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027024497

Thank you my passionate friend.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NCTraveler (Reply #62)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 01:11 PM

98. Link goes to deleted thread

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 7962 (Reply #98)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 01:14 PM

102. I know. nt.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NCTraveler (Reply #31)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 11:08 AM

36. Indeed. Me too...no reply necessary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fred Sanders (Reply #36)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 11:21 AM

51. Yeah, we get it

 

You are not in favor of, actual, ya know, debates. The less debates the better is what you stated.

As for the rest of us, more debates means more democracy in the exercise of free speech.

We have two candidates who want more debates. And one who is hiding just hoping to have a coronation.

That lays bare the situation.... no reply is expected since anti-democracy on DU is not cool, man, not cool.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Reply #51)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 12:50 PM

91. Neither of those posters are making the slightest bit of sense.

 


Is it some sort of secret code? I'm halfway thinking of alerting on your post to which they see "no need to reply" just to find out if somebody on the jury can explain what the fuck it is they see so horrible about your post.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ieoeja (Reply #91)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 12:56 PM

93. That's how I see it, too

 

I am only trying to figure out what they are trying to say.

Of course, since we are in opposition as far as Democratic debates go; with me in favor of more, I can only surmise the worst.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fred Sanders (Reply #18)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 11:17 AM

48. As bad as it was, it affected the campaigns and candidates...

 

It was Fox and the GOP and a huge slate of potential candidates. So naturally it was going to be awful.

Howevr, it did serve to advance the process. Candidates got visibility and demonstrated their strengths and weakness to the public. Some like Kasic and Carly F. became (at least temporarily) more visible and were seen more as viable candidates. Others did badly, and voters had a chance to see that. (Trump may have damaged himself.)

In other words it made it more of a campaign.

The Democratic debates have fewer candidates all of them bettwr than the jokers last night. It could also be presented in a more dignified manner.

It;s needed soon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Reply #16)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 12:04 PM

68. 100 Models being called in to cull the numbers to 1 or 2 is called a cattle call too.

 

and they are not even talking...although I suppose you could call posing a form of free speech. One of my kids has been to several cattle calls....granted it's not very complimentary, and is unkind on many levels, but it's out there are used with frequency. I do believe it ftis the bill for the GOP hopefuls since it's a term often used to gather a too bid group in order to compare and reduce numbers.

as it turns out...you outrage here is a little misguided.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sheepshank (Reply #68)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 12:19 PM

77. You may be right

 

I replied to Fred who wrote:
"6 actually debates is plenty enough....versus a million cattle calls."

And the OP is about calling DWS demanding more debates.

Fred had the chance to explain himself, yet he declined. If Fred is so confused as to include two wholly different ideas in one sentence then it does behoove him to clear it up. To me, his writings appear as not much more than a cattle call.

Of course, we do disagree on the first premise that 6 debates is enough.

And if he considers that we call DWS and ask for more than 6 debates, as cattle calls, then we are in opposition. Frankly, Fred shanked it, sheepishly so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fred Sanders (Reply #4)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 11:07 AM

34. "6 actually debates is plenty enough"

Is that an expert opinion based on sound metrics or just your Dad Voice?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whatchamacallit (Reply #34)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 11:12 AM

42. Is this an adult opinion forum or a crib for juvenile thinking? The GOP clown train needs to shed a caboose

or two, there is no need for Democrats, all our traincars look just fine!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fred Sanders (Reply #42)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 11:23 AM

55. The quality of your metaphor

makes your question more difficult to answer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fred Sanders (Reply #4)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 02:28 PM

119. Why do you go from one extreme to the other?

that's what conservatives do. Nobody here is asking for a million, or a hundred debates. What people want is for the DNC to rescind their plan to sanction anybody who debates outside of their forum. 10-12 events should suffice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fred Sanders (Reply #4)

Sat Aug 8, 2015, 01:10 AM

216. You know, Jeff47 makes a pretty good point below.

If two of the six scheduled debates are scheduled after just under a third of the primaries have ALREADY taken place, it may be a safe assumption to say, 'yes but those last two may be cancelled BECAUSE OF THAT.'

I agree with that, and I agree with what he says in another post on this string about the Overton window.

WE'VE GOT TO GET THE MESSAGE OUT, and the party structure needs to FACILITATE THAT instead of inhibiting it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PatrickforO (Original post)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 10:19 AM

6. First Dem date is schedule for October.

Yes, we're letting the GOP have two full months to circulate their bullshit in primetime, plus all the media coverage the follows, without having any debates of our own.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to winter is coming (Reply #6)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 10:32 AM

14. I think it's great strategy to let the 17-member nut panel play itself out

It's a circus and people need to get bored with the circus before they'll pay a bit of attention to the Democrats.

It's still 6 months till the first primary/caucuses. Six debates are plenty, especially with this small field. Honestly, with all the debates in 2008 it was nothing but repetition after repetition. And we don't need more so that people who might miss them can catch one, even: you can always watch them on the Internet.

Finally, our debates have nothing to do with the Republican debates. This isn't the general election. It's two separate PRIMARIES. Their debates are focused on garnering Republican voters; ours are to garner Democratic voters. It's how parties choose their candidates. (I ignore Independent voters because they are almost always Republican or Democratic voters who don't want to admit they're part of an organized party; those "undecideds" are the ones who don't watch debates anyway, so forget about them.)

The debates during the general election are another thing altogether.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frazzled (Reply #14)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 10:35 AM

17. By the time we start, they'll be bored with debates, period.

And wondering why the Dems aren't doing anything. The swing voters in the middle will have bought into the GOP bullshit. Delaying the debates that much obviously favors Hillary, and a lot of casual voters will be turned off by the appearance of corruption. We're shooting ourselves in the foot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to winter is coming (Reply #17)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 10:39 AM

19. There are no swing voters

Or at least they're a pretty rare breed. It's more or less a myth. Especially in these highly divided, partisan times. And if they're that undecided, they're not glued to their TVs watching every debate and following arcane policy issues.

Stop sweating it. People are on vacation. They're not even paying attention at all until after Labor Day. A primary is a contest between a party's candidates for the party's nomination. It's not a battle with the other party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to winter is coming (Reply #17)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 11:07 AM

33. This is the primary not the general.

The swing voters are all democrats *hopefully*...

This is NOT big issue IMO. Media is very different today and debate after debate won't do much to change anyone opinions. This primary is already very polarized within our own party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Agschmid (Reply #33)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 11:20 AM

49. Yeah, it is a big deal. There would be no need for an exclusivity clause

if this debate schedule were "no big deal". Whether DWS intended it or not, this looks like she's tilted the playing field in Hillary's favor. Really dumb idea. Nothing turns off voters faster than seeing that the game is rigged.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to winter is coming (Reply #49)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 11:23 AM

53. IMO nothing turns off voters than rediculous debates like we saw last night.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Agschmid (Reply #53)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 04:10 PM

168. No, nothing turns off you. You are not "voters".

The Republican base loved it. They are Trump.

Letting these all these debates go unanswered just moves the Overton window in the Republican's favor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to winter is coming (Reply #49)

Sat Aug 8, 2015, 01:01 AM

212. Your darned right! The exclusivity clause really sucks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PatrickforO (Original post)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 10:23 AM

10. That's just a lousy idea. Let the GOP have the spotlight! Don't distract from this Klown Kar Krash

with "other information."

The only reason I would call that number is to tell DWS "Great job!"

You do realize they can trace your number, and they'll know it's you calling in an harassing fashion every day? It's not like the same cranks, calling over and over, represent a "groundswell."

It just makes it harder for you to get clearance for the WH tour.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #10)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 11:27 AM

56. Right...

But it ends up making Democrats look spotty or out of touch. Giving the Republicans a week or two to be skewered by the daily/nightly show or John Oliver makes sense. Giving them almost two months is idiotic.

I have no idea why we wouldn't want to contrast insanity with sanity every other week.

Unless DWS is more concerned with the front runner winning the nomination than the Democrats winning the White House ornlocal elections.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kenfrequed (Reply #56)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 11:55 AM

63. There's so many of them--we're not talking about a two week snack on the GOP, we're

talking about a seventeen course meal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #63)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 12:01 PM

66. That doesn't even make sense

So waiting for over a month is going to somehow magically make their own free media evaporate.

If you think this is actually going to do the Democratic party any favors I have a bridge to sell you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kenfrequed (Reply #66)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 12:21 PM

79. If people are talking about what a big mouth Trump is, or how nervous Jeb! was, or how truculent

and un-Presidential Rand Paul was, I think you should LET THEM.

And sorry--you are wrong. Debates closer to elections are what make a difference.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #79)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 12:44 PM

89. These arent general election debates.

These are primary debates.


Taking two months off from our own debates invites the Republican clown car to frame all the issues and define more of the parameters of the election.

I know that debates are inconvenient to some candidates but if my candidate can't handle a debate within his own party then I have to look for a candidate that can. We are democrats. Let's act like it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kenfrequed (Reply #89)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 03:07 PM

130. I still don't understand what you are griping about.

You don't need a debate to figure out where two or three candidates stand on issues. That's usually what they're for--to sort out differences.

You want to play gotcha, I think--but you might not get what you expect if you play that game.

Debates are useful to see who can take the heat, but it's not like we've got 17 fools clamoring for our attention. There are two people running, and a spare who appears sincere but isn't breaking out in the polling. The others are just farting around, looking for attention. The longer we wait, the sooner they might just toddle off, because they aren't serious.

IA and NH are more important contests for the GOP because the electorate in those states more closely reflects Republican voters. They aren't viewed as must-wins for Democrats (in fact, Barack Obama and Bill Clinton didn't come first in NH on their first outings in that state--Bill Clinton took under three percent of the vote in the IA caucuses on his first try, thanks to a favorite son run by Tom Harkin). Our electorate is more diverse than the populations of those states, so super Tuesday is more indicative of our voter bloc. It's not indicative of "inconvenience," it has more to do with timing messaging so it's reaching the greatest number of likely/possible Dem voters at an optimal point in time.

That mess last night wasn't about framing--it was about The Donald bloviating, and a really good down and dirty fight between CC and Randy Paulbot. Most people would call that unprofessional clusterf-ck a "hot mess." A lot of people like Big Time Wrestling, just not on the debate stage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #130)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 03:39 PM

147. Ok...

I give up.

You have an agenda already. I get that.

You know the ironic thing is that more debates would probably hurt Sanders by pumping up the other candidates running in the single digits. Currently Sanders is the presumptive primary challenge to Hillary. He is having no trouble getting crowds, engergy, and momentum.

I thought more debates was sort of the idealistic Democratic thing and let the chips fall where they may.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kenfrequed (Reply #147)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 03:59 PM

164. My "agenda" is getting people excited about Democratic candidates close to elections that matter.

Webb and Chaffee are not serious. They're sunbathing or something.

O'Malley is, but he's more like the lion in the bush, tipping along after the two front runners and hoping for a stumble, and then he'll eat his fill and emerge, fresh and energized, should he get lucky. He's being judicious about his press, and doing things like running off to Puerto Rico (serious problems down there--bankrupt commonwealth and horrific drought) to get a grasp on "issues" and show himself to be able to diversify his interest and attention. And even if he doesn't get lucky, he's running for either VEEP or more likely, a cabinet post.

You've got two pros (who like each other) running in the top slots--Sanders hasn't had a lot of tough opposition, for the most part, but he's had a few contested races so he knows how to debate. He also knows how to take questions off-the-cuff; he does a lot of those town halls and those Vermonters don't mince words. He can give as good as he gets. HRC is a flat-out pro. She knows how to handle questions and get a dig in at a questioner if they're being jerks. It's just not news though--it's what we, the interested voters (and those are the only people paying attention to this stuff right now) already know.

The GOP are trying to cut down their numbers, but they, too, want to do it while most people aren't paying attention. There's no way that they can put lipstick on that trainwreck last night (to mix a few metaphors). It was ghastly and petty and stupid. We're better than that--but that's what we'd get, a bunch of gotcha questions on cultural issues and nothing about what's troubling the nation. People aren't ready to bear down on this aspect--they want sugar-rush candy and drama. After all, forcing candidates to talk about abortion rights rather than how the deficit will impact future generations is what gets the "wrestling fan" people all excited--even though it's pointless.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PatrickforO (Original post)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 10:26 AM

11. We are not only waiting another 2 1/2 months for our First debate.....

the republicans will have another one before we even start.

Now why are we giving an advantage to the other party?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to daleanime (Reply #11)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 10:43 AM

21. You think that was an advantage?

Anybody looking at that and thinking positively in any way is already an ideological Republican with zero chance of voting Dem, ever. Let them turn off the independents on their own dime. One of those Art of War quotes, or Napoleon, can never remember which, says in paraphrase "if your enemy is making a mistake, do nothing to interrupt him".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whatthehey (Reply #21)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 10:48 AM

25. Are people talking about Democrats or republicans today?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to daleanime (Reply #25)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 11:10 AM

39. Republicans...

But they are being mostly mocked by most media outlets I'm listening too.

"The loser was women"

"They all love war"

"Jeb is weakest candidate and came off as such"

"DNA schedules show at the minute of conception it's a baby"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Agschmid (Reply #39)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 12:06 PM

69. If you don't use it.....

you lose it.

We are going to disagree. Sorry about that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to daleanime (Reply #69)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 03:20 PM

134. We are. No biggie.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whatthehey (Reply #21)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 10:54 AM

27. Lots of coverage on GOP candidates, leading up to and following the debate,

in addition to the primetime debate itself. They're getting their faces and their sound bites out there. We're getting bupkis. Only on Opposite World could this be construed as a win for us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to winter is coming (Reply #27)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 12:06 PM

70. Amen.....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whatthehey (Reply #21)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 11:21 AM

50. Whether an advantage or not has to do with how was done and the candidates

 

It doesn't reflect on the need for debates.

It did affect the GOP field in terms of whether individual candidates are considered "viable" or not.

I am amazed that people here re arguing against the benefits of having an actual campaign.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Armstead (Reply #50)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 12:10 PM

72. It is kind of strange...

I just look at it this way, if I like my candidate, and the ideas they're putting forth, I want them in the spot light as often as possible for as many people as possible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to daleanime (Reply #11)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 10:47 AM

24. I really don't see this as an advantage for the GOP

 

fact of the matter is most of the public, including Conservatives, will forget which of the 17 (is it down to 17?) stood for which platform. the electorate generally remembers those who spoke last, no first.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sheepshank (Reply #24)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 10:53 AM

26. I see no advantage for us....

in letting them go first, be unanswered and having the spot light more often.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to daleanime (Reply #26)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 10:56 AM

29. political strategy isn't like boxing or basketball

 

there is no long term advantage to looking like a fool, first.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sheepshank (Reply #29)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 12:03 PM

67. How many times was Bu$h the lesser elected?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to daleanime (Reply #26)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 11:11 AM

41. This is a PRIMARY election. NOT the general I don't understand why people...

are treating this like the general election?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Agschmid (Reply #41)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 12:17 PM

76. Because we now spent twice the time in the primaries....

then in general elections?

Because people have become increasingly disillusioned with the choices we're allowed in the general election?

Takes a lot of time to turn the ship of state?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to daleanime (Reply #11)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 11:08 AM

35. How is what happened last night an advantage...

It's not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Agschmid (Reply #35)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 12:22 PM

81. So who has the spot light....

and is talking about why last night's circus was so bad?

If you're out shopping and you need to get food for the week, but everything on the shelf is disgusting, it doesn't help you that the good stuff is out back if you have no way of knowing that.

If we believe in our candidates, we have to show them off. The only reason we wouldn't is because we don't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to daleanime (Reply #81)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 01:53 PM

113. The answer is idiots.

And everyone is pointing out they are idiots... And this isn't grocery shopping it's an election that's a flawed comparison.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Agschmid (Reply #35)

Sat Aug 8, 2015, 01:20 AM

218. I think the "advantage" is for Democracy. The gop is exposing their idiots early

and often.. just like in 2012.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cha (Reply #218)

Sat Aug 8, 2015, 09:07 AM

221. Thank you for also not having amnesia, Cha. Amnesia is a real big problem in American politics.

As you can see from this thread.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to daleanime (Reply #11)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 11:14 AM

44. because dws wants hillary to get the nom no matter what

even if it costs the dems the general. she is not thinking of the good of the country or even her own party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to restorefreedom (Reply #44)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 12:24 PM

82. Unfortunately....

very possible. I hope not, but I see no other reason that makes any kind of sense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to daleanime (Reply #11)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 03:24 PM

139. Because almost NOTHING said today will be remembered 12 months from now nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PatrickforO (Original post)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 10:55 AM

28. Well, since there are 16 declared GOP candidates, the DNC has 5 major candidates, the GOP is holding

11 debates, the DNC is holding 6 debates, if you divide the time per candidate you will see the DNC is quiet generous and will have more exposure than the GOP candidates.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PatrickforO (Original post)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 11:09 AM

38. having seen how much Hillary flip flops on issues, the committee decided it's better to

 

let the republicans lies and propaganda go unchallenged than to make her defend her positions in front of Sanders and omalley.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Doctor_J (Reply #38)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 11:12 AM

43. All our candidates sent tweets, emails, texts last night.

The questions aren't unanswered.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Agschmid (Reply #43)

Sat Aug 8, 2015, 09:38 AM

222. Cool! So, where does she stand on the TPP?

I must have missed that. Oh, and the XL Pipeline. Thanks in advance for the Tweet text or is that twext?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Le Taz Hot (Reply #222)

Sat Aug 8, 2015, 10:39 AM

223. So that wasn't even a question the Republicans had to face.

But who knows she hasn't stated, I think we can all make an assumption but she isn't my candidate so I don't really have an opinion on this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Agschmid (Reply #223)

Sat Aug 8, 2015, 11:00 AM

224. . . .

"All our candidates sent tweets, emails, texts last night. The questions aren't unanswered."

So, if they were "unanswered," then the two issues I raised should be easily addressed. I did do a Google search and there doesn't seem to be a clear answer so, once again, I ask, "Where does she stand on the TPP and the XL Pipeline" since "the questions aren't unanswered."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Le Taz Hot (Reply #224)

Sat Aug 8, 2015, 11:41 AM

225. Those two issues weren raised.

It didn't even get asked... That's how rediculous that debate was.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PatrickforO (Original post)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 11:16 AM

45. the timing of dws announcement was no accident either

she knew people were going to be pissed about the fact that the first in debate isn't going to be until October. Everything they do is calculating, so she announced it the day before the Republican debate so that it would get swept under the carpet when everybody started focusing on Donald Trump and his band of idiots over on the Republican side. But that freak show hoopla is going to die down after a few days, and then people to start wondering why aren't the Democrats coming out and talking?

why indeed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PatrickforO (Original post)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 11:23 AM

54. I'm floored that people here are actually arguing against the democratic process n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Armstead (Reply #54)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 11:32 AM

58. They want a coronation

 

They are having hissy-fits because we won't bow down. So they go so far as oppose democracy in order to get their way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Armstead (Reply #54)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 11:35 AM

60. I am "floored" Bernie supporters are calling DWS a "shit" in the protected group!

Response to Le Taz Hot (Reply #3)Fri Aug 7, 2015, 09:34 AM

cascadiance (17,390 posts)

6. I'd say DWS stands for Debbie Weasel Sh*t!

Describes her character more!

..................


Public post, publicly repeatable, publicly called out.


Why do folks think they need to be vulgar and outraged at everything? What difference does it make?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fred Sanders (Reply #60)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 11:57 AM

64. +1,000! It's incredible. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fred Sanders (Reply #60)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 01:22 PM

108. I'll agree with you on that one

 

There's a line between criticism of a candidate, and obnoxious insults. That one crossed it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Armstead (Reply #54)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 12:43 PM

88. No they really aren't

 

They are arguing over the timing and frequency of primary debates. They aren't arguing for doing away with the debates or the primaries.

You just look silly and undermine any argument you make when you resort to making things up to disparage other people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mythology (Reply #88)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 01:20 PM

107. Just sayin'...Seems to be a pattern

 

Whether one believes there should be more debates and sooner seems to fall in line with what candidate one supports.

Support the pee-selected candidate backed by the party establishment? Debates bad. waste of time and money,

Support one of the challengers who is getting no visibility, and believes debates are necessary to allow voters to hear from all of the candidates? We need debates.

I say we need debates.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Armstead (Reply #107)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 03:37 PM

145. Just FYI...

This is the DNC Mobile Homepage...



Can you believe they have O'Malley, Webb, and Chaffee over Bernie and Hillary? Hey wait... They have Bernie! Isn't he not even a Dem? They must really be supporting the pre-selected candidate... Those bastards.



The more this meme gets pushed the more rediculous it seems.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Agschmid (Reply #145)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 05:05 PM

183. You'll note that BOTH of the more visible candidates are on the bottom row

 

Nice that they showed their pictures. How about letting people hear from them?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Armstead (Reply #183)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 05:12 PM

184. Yes usually the top tier candidates are on the top row...

Weird, seems they are helping the little guys.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PatrickforO (Original post)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 11:44 AM

61. But, but, but...

 

We have to wait fir some reason..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PatrickforO (Original post)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 12:20 PM

78. The Clowns put on a circus...

Doesn't mean the Democrats have to follow in their footsteps.

Let's let the media and public wallow in their in the slop for a while.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PatrickforO (Original post)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 12:22 PM

80. Wrong Number call DNC #202 863 8000

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vincardog (Reply #80)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 01:27 PM

112. Yes, 202-863-8000 is correct

Other number is DWS Congressional office. Calling the DNC got me into DWS's voicemail.

When Dems debate, we'll be setting our narrative, not just reacting to Clown Car.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vincardog (Reply #80)

Sat Aug 8, 2015, 12:59 AM

211. Thanks for the correction.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PatrickforO (Original post)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 12:27 PM

84. We still have over a year to go

 

If this were August 2016 then yes, they need to get on the ball.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Politicalboi (Reply #84)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 01:12 PM

100. I have an idea

 

That besides keeping Hillary from embarrassing herself on national TV, the heads of the DNC are just plain scared of the real Democratic message being on TV since the heads are more republican than true Democrats.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Reply #100)

Sat Aug 8, 2015, 08:13 AM

220. Your embarrassing yourself.....

she has been on TV more than a few times front of large audiences. In your zeal to try to tell the DNC how to run things you forget they got Obama through twice 8 yrs. Seems the message got through there, didn't it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Historic NY (Reply #220)

Sat Aug 8, 2015, 12:44 PM

226. Hillary debated Obama and lost

 

I don't get where you get off with your personal attacks.

I know you love Hillary, and are in favor of less democracy via less debates, but that gives you no reason to launch such personal attacks.... I think you are looking in the mirror as you do?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Politicalboi (Reply #84)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 03:22 PM

137. No, we have 6 months to go.

First election is February 1st.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Politicalboi (Reply #84)

Sat Aug 8, 2015, 02:54 AM

219. That was true in 2007 as well, when we had ALREADY HAD eight debates n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PatrickforO (Original post)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 01:11 PM

99. "if 50 or 60 thousand people called every day, the debates would get scheduled."

Psssst, don't tell anybody, they ARE scheduled!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PatrickforO (Original post)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 01:15 PM

103. Does DWS WANT Dems to Lose? (again) n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fredamae (Reply #103)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 03:39 PM

149. ... Obama?

And remember the people who lost ran from Obama, that was there mistake.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fredamae (Reply #103)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 03:57 PM

160. She's got a good track record

After all, she picked up a former Republican with a checkered past, slapped the D on him, and passed him off as a progressive. Nobody voted for him and the incumbent won as a result.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PatrickforO (Original post)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 01:17 PM

105. Why interfere with that GOP garbage fire from last night?

Thankfully, I didn't watch it - I was at a monthly meeting of computer geeks and newbies listening to a demonstration on Windows 10.

Seems I didn't miss much.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DinahMoeHum (Reply #105)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 04:14 PM

171. To keep the Overton window from drifting to the right.

Letting the garbage go unanswered makes the garbage "normal".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PatrickforO (Original post)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 03:07 PM

128. Kick. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PatrickforO (Original post)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 03:58 PM

163. Initially I was in agreement with you, BUT, after last night, I'm leaning the other way.

I was having fun ridiculing the various Pubs and their comments during last nights 2 clown shows. My hubby had been in the den watching whatever his choice for the night was. He walked out into the LR around 10:30 and said (in a very disgusted tone) "How long are we going to have to listen to THIS CRAP again?" I laughed and responded, "OH, about another 15 months."

He grumbled and went off to bed, but I started thinking...how many people are there like him in the US? Maybe starting with debates & TV Ads over a year before the election really IS too soon. I know all of us get really tired seeing & hearing that stuff a while', especially since there's very little "NEW" after a while. Maybe Debbie is right in waiting for a few months and let the Pubs become old and boring and mostly ignored, and let the Dems come on the scene Fresh & New 2 months later. A year prior to the election in my mind is still way too long to campaign, but it's at lease a little shorter. I'd still love to see it changed to the way the Brits do it.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2010-05-14/opinion/ct-oped-0514-british-20100514_1_campaign-spending-candidates-election-day

Conservative Party leader David Cameron ousted Gordon Brown as prime minister of the United Kingdom. On Tuesday, Brown resigned his post and Cameron moved to No. 10 Downing St. The campaign lasted one month and virtually nothing was spent by either campaign, compared with U.S. standards.

The national election in the U.K. should be a wake-up call to Americans.

Campaign spending in this country is out of control.

In the 2008 presidential race, the candidates spent a total of $1.7 billion, double what was spent in the 2004 race. In the U.K. election, a spending cap of 20 million pounds, about $33 million, was imposed on each of the major parties. Of course, campaigns there are less expensive partly because of a ban on paid radio and TV advertising or any ads on matters of "political or industrial controversy."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PatrickforO (Original post)

Sat Aug 8, 2015, 12:56 AM

209. The typical argument is

"why we will wait till the GOP self destructs, and come in looking great!"

Well, for one, that is lazy as hell, and people will see that. If Hillary is so bloody inevitable, she should be able to be exposed in the air without spoiling.

For two: we just gave whoever does emerge from that trainwreck more of a spotlight. Be it Jeb, Scott or yes, even bad haircut, that person will get at least a month before us to use all the hype they can buy, and that means September can be a major month to turn heads.

Even if God ordains that Hillary will be the nominee, with 100 percent accuracy, we DO need to think of next year, why, because the GOP sure as hell is. Hillary needs to be DEFINED, and if she just allows the GOP to play with no media response of her own, then people will see someone that is willing to let the GOP run amok.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonCoquixote (Reply #209)

Sat Aug 8, 2015, 01:04 AM

213. Yes. That's it.

Debates help define candidates and help them get the word out. And whose bright idea was to schedule the last two debates after a bunch of states have already had their primaries? Those are gonna get cancelled for sure.

There's just a stink about the whole thing. And it's coming from the Dem establishment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread