terror. It will suck all the energy out of the room.

Unfortunately, tragedy does a lot for ratings.

I'm guessing that they won't be able to reschedule until after the Thanksgiving break ...

Out of respect for the victims and I'm guessing Clinton's schedule isn't going to be very flexible.

I'm guessing the statement will read

"Out of respect for the victims of the terror attacks in Paris, we are cancelling tonight's debates. We will reschedule the debate at an appropriate date in consultation with all the candidates. Our prayers and thoughts are with the families of the loved ones."

at most there will be a 30 second clip of who would have the most aggressive response to the attacks

I'm guessing it's going to come up in tomorrow debates.

Considering how he screwed up the Putin question in the first debate I don't have high hopes.

Lots of people are heavily emotionally invested in their candidates and the reactions do reflect that...

denial: those polls don't mean much! they don't poll the right people! he/she just needs to explain his platform more and there will be such a wellspring of support that puts him/her over the top!

anger: we're certainly seeing a lot of that right now

bargaining: maybe he/she will be the running mate, maybe he/she will speak at the convention, maybe he/she will have a position in the cabinet

depression: I don't want to hear about the elections

acceptance: I don't want to do this but I have to do this for the sake of my ... future

which have been part of the nomination process since 1984?

You can't change the rules this late in the game just because you don't like the results.


Some posts claim that he couldn't get on the ballot in Vermont as a Democrat.

Here's the last GE ballot from Vermont. Clearly shows someone running as a Democrat for the House of Representatives.

https://www.sec.state.vt.us/media/616758/2014-GE-Sample-Ballot.pdf


If I just join a society, do I as a newcomer and outsider have the right to criticize the election process? Or would I be taken more seriously if I have "paid my dues" and have some seniority?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/27/us/politics/congress-and-white-house-near-deal-on-budget.html

While congressional aides cautioned that the deal was far from certain, and the Treasury Department declined to comment, officials briefed on the negotiations said the emerging accord would call for cuts in spending on Medicare and Social Security disability benefits.

“We have worked assiduously to protect the privacy and confidentiality of those discussions,” said Josh Earnest, the White House press secretary, because the negotiators have been operating under the principle that no single item would be agreed to until every issue under discussion had been settled.

My guess is that this was leaked by either side to blow up this deal. Now good luck getting anyone on either side to vote for the deal.

Sure, sure. Bernie supporters always mock people who bring up this question and say it's not his job because he's not a local or state politician. He's a US Senator. Yeah we get that. Really.

But do people who are not in local/state government have the ability to influence public policy at the local/state government levels? Union leaders? Business leaders? Religious leaders? Civil right leaders? US Senators?

Was Martin Luther King Jr ever part of any local, state, or federal government? Was Susan Anthony?

Either Bernie didn't try (didn't care enough) or he tried and failed. Which is it?

Hence I would love to see Bernie embrace both aspects when he points to Denmark. I would love for him to explain this during his great speech on socialism: "under socialism, taxes are going to go up on everybody to pay for a robust social safety net".

Only then can we have a fair debate on policies and issues, which his supporters have been lording over others for months. But far they have been talking about the social benefits without the costs part. It's great to promise free health care, free parental leave, free state college tuition and room & board, expanded social security, extinguishing of student loans, etc, and bash Clinton for not promising all this. But what's the plan to pay? I agree with Clinton that we need a progressive who gets things done (not make promises that can't be funded). It's very unfair to her because she's realistic that she doesn't promise all this benefits when she knows it's not going to get funded. Why didn't Vermont fund single payer? Why was Obama forced to drop his plan to tax college 529 plans to fund free community college for all? These are the perfect examples of when dreams meet reality.

Hence I'm very excited that he's finally starting to talk about the costs part. This shows that finally he is getting serious about thinking of how to pay. His supporters should be as well. However I'm puzzled why many of his supporters are running away from a miserly 0.2% increase in the payroll tax to fund parental leave.

Let's put it to a fair debate on both the costs and the benefits. And let the people decide if they want to pay the costs for the benefits.


Here's the tax rates for Denmark
https://www.cfe-eutax.org/taxation/personal-income-tax/denmark

1 USD is about 6.5 DKK.

0%: Up to 41 000 DKK
37.48%: 41 001 – 279 800
43.48%: 279 801 – 335 800
59%: 335 801 and over

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/18/politics/bernie-sanders-payroll-tax-hike-family-leave/

Bernie Sanders says it's not just Wall Street and corporate America that would pay more if he's elected president: All workers would face a slight payroll tax hike.

The Vermont senator who's seeking the Democratic presidential nomination said Sunday on ABC's "This Week" that the across the board increase would come as part of his push to guarantee paid family leave.

Sanders touted a measure sponsored in the Senate by Democrat Kirsten Gillibrand of New York that would impose a new 0.2% payroll tax to finance family leave payments. The proposal would allow workers to get up to 66% of their salaries as paid family leave for up to 12 weeks.

Thoughts? Do you agree?

I do. I believe that all the new government spending Bernie wants should be financed by everyone not just the top 1% or top 10%. That's what a real socialist society is about (everybody pays and everybody benefits).

I'm also very happy that finally he is getting serious about rolling out his policy positions on the "who pays" part and admitting that he can't raise all the money from the rich. Also, remember this is just one part of his platform. Soon I'm sure he will discuss how he wants to pay for free public college, universal health care for all (couldn't work in Vermont), etc.