Forum Thread

The debate list

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 7 Posts
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    They've decided who is invited to the Democratic debates. Sadly it's split over 2 nights and it's not 50% of interesting parties on each night. Group B is more likely candidates. Hopefully ideas are shared and positions are explained. Ultimately 70% will realize it's not their time and 4 or 5 will continue to battle until the decision is made.

    nytimes.com/2019/06/14/us/politics/demo...

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    TJ Wrote:

    They've decided who is invited to the Democratic debates. Sadly it's split over 2 nights and it's not 50% of interesting parties on each night. Group B is more likely candidates. Hopefully ideas are shared and positions are explained. Ultimately 70% will realize it's not their time and 4 or 5 will continue to battle until the decision is made.

    nytimes.com/2019/06/14/us/politics/demo...

    Let the circus start; who is "vetting" these people? I guess no one, like as with Trump.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    @TJ, I was considering beginning a thread similar to yours, except I was going to word the title of mine a bit different, my title would have been "The DNC, Money Talks".

    I heard that these debates were going to be split into two, on separate days, and I'd also heard the the field was trimmed down from 20+ something candidates to 20. Why? Here's the reasoning behind the trimming:

    "A candidate must register at least 1 percent in three different DNC-approved polls 14 days prior to the debate or raise money from at least 65,000 unique donors, having a minimum of 200 contributors in each of at least 20 states. If more than 20 candidates meet both thresholds, candidates with the highest polling average will be given preference, followed by candidates with the most unique donors."

    usnews.com/news/politics/articles/guide...

    @Dutch, It's about money coming in, not about vetting.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Dockadams Wrote:

    @TJ, I was considering beginning a thread similar to yours, except I was going to word the title of mine a bit different, my title would have been "The DNC, Money Talks".

    I heard that these debates were going to be split into two, on separate days, and I'd also heard the the field was trimmed down from 20+ something candidates to 20. Why? Here's the reasoning behind the trimming:

    "A candidate must register at least 1 percent in three different DNC-approved polls 14 days prior to the debate or raise money from at least 65,000 unique donors, having a minimum of 200 contributors in each of at least 20 states. If more than 20 candidates meet both thresholds, candidates with the highest polling average will be given preference, followed by candidates with the most unique donors."

    usnews.com/news/politics/articles/guide...

    @Dutch, It's about money coming in, not about vetting.

    Dock, absolutely correct; "brains" don't count, only how much money you raised. That is how you get idiots like Trump or McConnell, Ross etc. (of course if you are married into "money or Daddy gave it to you)

    Also "qualification vetting", is an total joke here; even Mueller did an lousy job and did not dig into the "past" of our President. ( Now AFTERWARDS the book writers have an "hay day")

    The refusal in this country to have elections WITHOUT MONEY and LOBBYISTS will always favor idiots with lots of "money" like is the case now. In continental Europe, an candidate is allowed only to spent about an set amount like EU 150,000 (when I lived there) as well no lobbying is allowed; anything above it has to be approved first.

    Thus since nothing has changed in the voting laws; I believe this new election will again be done via the "billionaires" who will lobby like crazy to get the "goodies", as they did with Trump. ( They earned "billions" from Trump in their tax returns)

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    People or politicians with huge money can fix the problems..... Errrr ! They address their own needs and wants. They help themselves and their friends and associates. Huge tax cuts heavily favor the wealthy and corporations. Cost about 1.5 trillion dollars. The same 1.5 towards healthcare would make essential meds and services attainable if the politicians face the Pharma and Insurance lobby. Difference is the pharma lobby will fund political commercials while the poor individuals can't and won't make donations so they are non factors in politics.

    Don't help all of the people. Just help the good ones who lie cheat and steal while filling their own pockets. A trillion and a half and your share is 2.5% but you get the bill ultimately.

    Vote 100% of the time.

    Back to the debates. Mayor Pete had a statement on social media about Freedom and how R's act like they protect freedoms. I like him a lot but money is the ingredient the party insists upon. Maybe really old guy A or really old guy B will pick a younger more diverse second in command.

    Maybe Dems can realize that 60 minutes to vote is far better than burying your head in the sand and letting other morons (who actually vote) decide how the country will be run or managed. Tuesday night television is not that good and if you haven't discovered the DVR......

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    24 candidates, which one is electable? If voters don't like most or any, they'll sit at home and not come out to vote.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    It does take some effort to screen candidates on style, substance and electability, but also as Dutch says, proper vetting to make sure there are no skeletons in the closet that could impact voters' views or emotions. I think most (not all) of the Democratic candidates could fill the enormous responsibilities of the president. However, that bar is pretty low right now because of Trump.

    This primary election is not so much about choosing the best candidate to beat Trump as it is about meeting the expectations of a diverse populace. We seem hell bent on applying purity tests to the candidates, and are too ready to dismiss or disqualify a person for a single flaw or something they said or did years or decades ago, while ignoring all the positives that the person could bring to the office. We focus too much on the negatives.

    I don't need to like a person or warm to him or her as long as the candidate can beat Trump soundly.