What the Actual Fuck?!

[berni_mccoy]

https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2019-06-06/dnc-denies-2020-democrats-a-climate-change-debate

DNC Denies 2020 Democrats a Climate Change Debate

THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL Committee will not host a presidential debate centered around climate change, presidential candidate and Washington Gov. Jay Inslee said Wednesday.

Inslee added that the DNC told him it would ban any candidates who participate in a climate debate from future DNC debates.

"This is deeply disappointing," Inslee said in a statement. "The climate crisis merits a full discussion of our plans, not a short exchange of talking points."

In an interview with CNN, he also pushed back against the DNC's decision to ban candidates who would like to participate in a climate change debate.

"That's outrageous to me, to muzzle candidates who want to go out and have this debate," he said.

Ok, I get the complex logistics of hosting a single debate with all the candidates on climate change. But BANNING candidates from participating in climate change debates? That's outrageously unacceptable.

Climate Change poses an existential threat to civilization. It *must* be addressed and the candidates who have plans for addressing it should debate their plans. That is fundamentally what democracy is about.

[brooklynite]

1. Not what they said...

They said (previously reported) that anyone participating in a NON-DNC debate (regardless of topic) would bearred from future DNC debates.

Since everyone doesn't agree on what the "most important issue" is, this is the fair approach.

[KPN]

6. Same effect. So, do we care what they actually said in this case? Do you have the text of what

they actually did say? Barring candidates from all future DNC debates because they participated in another (non-DNC) debate seems punitive and comes across as, well, authoritarian. Why would they even do that? I just don't get the rationale.

[kcr]

7. How is it the same effect?

The DNC did not ban climate debate, with the intent to single out the subject of climate. They aren't allowing single issue debates on other topics, either.

[KPN]

8. Is that actually what they said or did they say they will bar candidates who participate in any

non-DNC conducted debate from future DNC debates? Or both?

Re: how? Pretty simple. The rule effectively denies the possibility of a debate on global warming. How is that not the same effect?

[brooklynite]

9. "DNC announces it will hold 12 debates for the 2020 presidential race" (December 2018)

Perez also said the DNC would not bar candidates from participating in forums, but he said it would discourage them to appear in debates beyond the 12 the DNC is sanctioning.

https://www.nbcnews.com/card/dnc-announces-it-will-hold-12-debates-2020-presidential-race-n950431

[KPN]

10. Thanks. I'll keep an open mind about this for now. But it does seem like an over-reach to bar

candidates from participating in any other debates. Why would they do that?

[kcr]

11. Why? Because it would effectively undo their measures to make it fair.

For example, the front runners could hold their own debates, freezing out the underdogs.

[KPN]

14. Hmmmm ... nah, they couldn't get away with that. If that's the real reason, it's faulty

thinking in my view. A mix of both over- and insufficient thinking.

[murielm99]

2. Inslee's entire campaign

is based around climate change. Why should he be given a leg up over other candidates?

Climate change can be addressed in the debates, but not as the only topic.

If he can't abide by DNC rules, too bad. Let him be banned. They are the sponsors, they set the rules.

We have too many candidates as it is. I respect the man, but some sort of framework is required, especially with a field this large.

The DNC has to herd cats as it is.

On edit: Look at brooklynite's post. Read it carefully. Please try not to twist what the DNC has said.

[berni_mccoy]

3. I'm not twisting anything and I wish you wouldn't so easily accuse others of doing so

I quoted the article which quotes Inslee.

It is fair to trust Inslee's word on what he was told by the DNC.

[lostnfound]

5. It's an existential threat. It engages youth. The public could stand to be educated about options .

Might as well ask why there should be a debate solely on healthcare.

[stonecutter357]

4. it's not outrageous at all ....

[Indygram]

12. Rather than have a Climate Change debate make it a town hall

And that should stay within the rules of the DNC while still putting the issue front and center.

[MineralMan]

13. There are many crucial issues. Everyone has a different view on which

is the most critical. It is, no doubt a crucial issue, so it will no doubt be raised.

With only three debates before the first primaries, almost every major issue will be brought up in the debates. In addition, no candidate is prohibited from stating a position on climate change as part of his or her campaign. I expect that most of them will do so.

The debates are designed to put various issues in front of the candidates in that debate session, to allow a direct comparison by viewers of the different positions. Since people have different issues they think are the most important, a broader based debate is necessary.

I encourage each candidate to address every important issue, either in one of the debates or in campaign literature and position statements.

I cannot imagine that climate change will not be an issue that gets raised in at least one of the debate rounds, so that all candidates will have an opportunity to provide their positions and proposals on it.

[BannonsLiver]

15. Ah recycled outrage over something that happened 4-5 days ago.

How clever.

[murielm99]

16. LOL