The DNC just made it mathematically impossible for Tulsi Gabbard to make the next debate, leaving Biden and Sanders one-on-one

[ShookKnight]

Tulsi is a Russian asset - she belongs in the GOP. Move over to the party of Putin lady.

 

[Starbuck1975]

He'd prefer special treatment for a third party candidate from a political body that he obviously concern trolls all the time.

Gabbard is for legalized marijuana, criminal justice reform, single payer health care, education reform and an end to American military adventurism. You’re right, that is 3rd party crazy talk.

 

[fskimospy]

Gabbard is for legalized marijuana, criminal justice reform, single payer health care, education reform and an end to American military adventurism. You’re right, that is 3rd party crazy talk.

I’m for those things too and like Tulsi, I poll at around 0%. Should I be invited to the debate?

 

[ewdotson]

Personally I am entirely unconvinced Biden would achieve very much if he did beat Trump, but the reality is that politics is more than just one guy and one election...beating Trump is just one part of it, it would be a small start not the whole battle - you gotta start somewhere.

Don't lose sight of the fact that even if Biden accomplished nothing else in his administration, ensuring that RBG (and possibly Breyer as well) doesn't get replaced by a Federalist Society bot would be massively important.

 

[Perknose]

I’m for those things too and like Tulsi, I poll at around 0%. Should I be invited to the debate?

Yes! At least you're a citizen of this planet. As for moonbat cult child Gabbard, who knows what planet this dictator loving dingbat is from?

 

[Perknose]

Don't lose sight of the fact that even if Biden accomplished nothing else in his administration, ensuring that RBG (and possibly Breyer as well) doesn't get replaced by a Federalist Society bot would be massively important.

^^^ This, damn it, THIS!!!!

 

[fskimospy]

Biden also would have the opportunity to ferret out the massive corruption Trump has introduced to the federal government and give the DOJ freedom to prosecute anyone and everyone from the prior administration it seems appropriate.

Honestly my biggest misgiving about Biden is that he will take the Obama route and give them a pass.

 

[ewdotson]

Yeah, I have the same suspicion as well - that Biden would try to place the peacemaker and not prosecute folks who frankly should be prosecuted. (And that his olive branches would be treated with the contempt that we've come to expect from the GOP.) Which I'm not thrilled with, but it is what it is.

 

[ch33zw1z]

I’m for those things too and like Tulsi, I poll at around 0%. Should I be invited to the debate?

Lol, agreed. I want in also. Those topics are supported by other candidates who poll far higher. Whens Tulsi gonna drop out and support them?

Also, she did herself NO favors among people who would support her policies when she pulled the impeachment crap

 

[ch33zw1z]

Gabbard is for legalized marijuana, criminal justice reform, single payer health care, education reform and an end to American military adventurism. You’re right, that is 3rd party crazy talk.

Yes, those are largely not centrist policies (or GOP). Now, if you want to create and actual third party platform that Sanders, Tulsi, warren can run under....fine by me. I'm registered independent.

The DNC is under no obligation to cater to someone with basically no support. Tell us again how it's because of misogyny

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Don't lose sight of the fact that even if Biden accomplished nothing else in his administration, ensuring that RBG (and possibly Breyer as well) doesn't get replaced by a Federalist Society bot would be massively important.

this

Biden also would have the opportunity to ferret out the massive corruption Trump has introduced to the federal government and give the DOJ freedom to prosecute anyone and everyone from the prior administration it seems appropriate.

Honestly my biggest misgiving about Biden is that he will take the Obama route and give them a pass.

and this

 

[Perknose]

Biden also would have the opportunity to ferret out the massive corruption Trump has introduced to the federal government and give the DOJ freedom to prosecute anyone and everyone from the prior administration it seems appropriate.

Honestly my biggest misgiving about Biden is that he will take the Obama route and give them a pass.

My lingering fear, as well. This above, and pardoning Trump. That piece of shit belongs in jail.

Folks are rightly worried that Joe will stumble and flail some in any debate with Trump. And he probably will, BUT . . . I sincerely hope he does get righteously angry and calls FAT FUCK Trump every deserved name in the book. What many here don't seem to understand is that we DO live in a reality show universe, and that the great unwashed among the Trump supporters have reflexively voted for him because "he tells it like it is."

"We" need to peel off some of this demographic and bring them back to their natural base in the Democratic Party, the party of the working man! Joe showing genuine emotion, no matter how sclerotic, will get through to a not insignificant number of them.

In short, just like the winning slogan from Truman's unlikely victory in 1948:

Give 'em hell, Joe!​

 

[pmv]

Don't lose sight of the fact that even if Biden accomplished nothing else in his administration, ensuring that RBG (and possibly Breyer as well) doesn't get replaced by a Federalist Society bot would be massively important.

True, though personally I'm not impressed by the whole Supreme Court concept. As far as I can see it's been a conservative institution for the majority of its existence, barring one short-lived era. Fighting a constant damage-control battle to stop it getting even worse, while necessary, doesn't feel like a very inspiring project. I'd just scrap it, or at least massively reform it, if it were up to me. It clearly has too much power for what is an irremediably political institution disguised as a non-partisan legal one.

I really think most Western political systems need major reform, otherwise Trumpism will keep coming back.

 

[Starbuck1975]

I’m for those things too and like Tulsi, I poll at around 0%. Should I be invited to the debate?

Did you compete in the primary? Maybe we can convince the DNC to arbitrarily change the rules on your behalf. Do you have a lot of money? Also, you have to go easy on Joe.

 

[fskimospy]

Did you compete in the primary? Maybe we can convince the DNC to arbitrarily change the rules on your behalf. Do you have a lot of money? Also, you have to go easy on Joe.

So just signing up for the primary means you should be on the debate stage? Looks like we better gird ourselves for the debating prowess of Roque "Rocky" De La Fuente III then!

I just want to be clear, you're saying fskimiospy should be part of the Democratic debate if I had decided to 'compete' in the primary despite having 0% support? If not, what separates me from Tulsi?

 

[Starbuck1975]

So just signing up for the primary means you should be on the debate stage? Looks like we better gird ourselves for the debating prowess of Roque "Rocky" De La Fuente III then!

I just want to be clear, you're saying fskimiospy should be part of the Democratic debate if I had decided to 'compete' in the primary despite having 0% support? If not, what separates me from Tulsi?

She had the required number of delegates that were kept low enough I am guessing when the rules were set so as not to exclude viable candidates across a broad field. When the rules were set, I doubt many campaigns anticipated the centrist forming O’bidenbamatron.

Now you’re down to three candidates. If the DNC wants to change the rules so as to filter down to two, they certainly can.

Maybe you should have campaigned in Samoa?

 

[Starbuck1975]

Yes, those are largely not centrist policies (or GOP). Now, if you want to create and actual third party platform that Sanders, Tulsi, warren can run under....fine by me. I'm registered independent.

The DNC is under no obligation to cater to someone with basically no support. Tell us again how it's because of misogyny

If Warren chose to stay in, she similarly had no path to the nomination, but I doubt the DNC would block her from the debate.

It’s not misogyny.

 

[fskimospy]

She had the required number of delegates that were kept low enough I am guessing when the rules were set so as not to exclude viable candidates across a broad field. When the rules were set, I doubt many campaigns anticipated the centrist forming O’bidenbamatron.

Now you’re down to three candidates. If the DNC wants to change the rules so as to filter down to two, they certainly can.

Maybe you should have campaigned in Samoa?

Gabbard has not met the requirements to make it onto the debate floor for months now, this is nothing new. The party made it very clear from the very beginning that the rules for who would qualify would get tougher with each debate and Gabbard couldn't keep up, principally because she has near zero support.

You seem to think people with 0% support should be in the debate so I'm just trying to figure out why you're discriminating against me. Are you colluding with the DNC to keep my voice silent?

 

[ch33zw1z]

If Warren chose to stay in, she similarly had no path to the nomination, but I doubt the DNC would block her from the debate.

It’s not misogyny.

That's funny, because more than once in this thread you implied it was misogyny

Edit: warren had far more support than Gabbard also

 

[UberNeuman]

Tulsi is a Russian asset - she belongs in the GOP. Move over to the party of Putin lady.

Besides the obvious one in this thread? lol.