General Discussion

merrily

(45,251 posts)

81. Regardless, it's a bizarre accusation. This bs is beyond played out and needs to be called out.

Reply to Bjorn Against (Reply #79)

Wed May 6, 2015, 01:00 AM

May 2015

Click here to purchase valentine hearts!

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

205 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Hillary rival accuses Democrats of manipulating debate schedule to protect her [View all] Bjorn Against May 2015 OP

'Business Insider' is a pro-corporation rag and no sources are cited in this crap article. onehandle May 2015 #1

Most major news sources are pro-corporate rags, but no one is denying the exclusivity clause exists Bjorn Against May 2015 #3

Then why didn't you start with those links? onehandle May 2015 #9

Sexist? Sorry but pointing out that the debate rules suck is not sexist. Bjorn Against May 2015 #10

And if you are going to accuse me of posting from a right-wing source... Bjorn Against May 2015 #13

I will say and it depends from editors sourcing policy JonLP24 May 2015 #26

I understand very well why a Democratic Presidential hopeful might not want to attach his name merrily May 2015 #59

Oh come on. There is nothing wrong with that photo. My opinion of it is that she has a serious totodeinhere May 2015 #47

Not to mention, it was a giant assumption about why Bjorn Against linked to Business Insider. merrily May 2015 #61

Agreed. totodeinhere May 2015 #169

I agree: I think she looks strong, healthy and deep in thought. Not a bad pic at all. C Moon May 2015 #70

Well this is not "sexist" mylye2222 May 2015 #82

God, how tedious. Marr May 2015 #83

That what some of us had said since long. mylye2222 May 2015 #84

Get ready for the next year and a half... Oktober May 2015 #108

Do you just keep the sexist attacks on copy and paste... Oktober May 2015 #107

Clinton signed the telecommunications act that encouraged and increased the JDPriestly May 2015 #46

The ONLY relevant issue: is the story false? merrily May 2015 #58

It's nonsense. The only relevant part in the article is this: stevenleser May 2015 #122

You really can't ignore the NEW "exclusivity requirement" can you? think May 2015 #135

Who said I was ignoring it? It's a non-issue that keeps it fair. stevenleser May 2015 #137

you certainly didn't mention it and said that one could ignore the rest of the article think May 2015 #138

Because you can. It's a non-issue. nt stevenleser May 2015 #139

"Because you can" what? think May 2015 #140

Ignore it. It's a non issue. nt stevenleser May 2015 #141

exclusivity, late scheduling and limited number may be a non-issue to you magical thyme May 2015 #177

LOL, no by all means, as I said downthread, lets have 50 debates and invite DUers to participate in stevenleser May 2015 #179

How is that clause going to hurt? Gothmog May 2015 #158

There were no fewer than 26 Democratic Primary Presidential Debates in 2008. 26 Debates. NYC_SKP May 2015 #203

Which Hillary rival is making this accusation? Thinkingabout May 2015 #2

Fair play for all the candidates needs to be protested? Bjorn Against May 2015 #6

Who are the rivals you are talking? Thinkingabout May 2015 #7

Webb, O'Malley, and Sanders Bjorn Against May 2015 #8

And anyone else who may run. It's also unfair to Democratic primary voters. merrily May 2015 #63

Hmmm...wonder what Hillary is afraid of? InAbLuEsTaTe May 2015 #155

Competition. Ikonoklast May 2015 #174

The DNC is meeting with the different groups and negotiating with each. Thinkingabout May 2015 #112

The people who are asking for more debates are clearly not afraid of debates Bjorn Against May 2015 #116

Does the DNC want to present a Clown Car primary or leave it to the GOP? Thinkingabout May 2015 #121

<sigh>. Debates are theater. Pure and simple. Adrahil May 2015 #100

I concur. Questionnaires are pretty useful, but debates seem to only be about putting on a show. N/T Chathamization May 2015 #146

HuffPost is reporting that it is an adviser to Martin O'Malley totodeinhere May 2015 #51

Irrelevant. The only relevant issue is whether it's true or not. merrily May 2015 #62

All of them need to get the message out there. Ads favor the wealthy, debates are equalizers. NYC_SKP May 2015 #202

If the candidate has what it takes then put it up, having fifty debates will not make your Thinkingabout May 2015 #205

This isn't about making Hillary happy, it's about being able to compete with the GOP and they okaawhatever May 2015 #4

If anyone remembers 2012 they will remember that the Rs had an awful lot of debates. So many jwirr May 2015 #22

That's a good question. I really wonder what the Democratic party is concerned about with okaawhatever May 2015 #25

The funny thing about debates JonLP24 May 2015 #28

Agreed. I don't see debates as the way Bernie will get his message out. He basically needs to okaawhatever May 2015 #32

And social media and word of mouth. I think the debates will unify the party behind being issue jwirr May 2015 #127

I think social media will help raise name awareness, but Bernie's positions IMHO will okaawhatever May 2015 #130

There is where you and I disagree. I see his stance on the issues as very much like those of FDR. jwirr May 2015 #132

But how many current American voters are familiar with the policies of FDR? Those of us on DU are okaawhatever May 2015 #134

Oh, they are familiar with him - they just don't know it. Social Security, Glass-Steagell, etc. jwirr May 2015 #142

And Hillary openly agreed. So I read that also. One think I am expecting the Democratic debates jwirr May 2015 #119

On Rachel tonight she was talking about how parties limit the number of candidates that can be on jwirr May 2015 #36

The RNC had 23 debates and there is an argument that these debates hurt Romney Gothmog May 2015 #104

i think it did too. i wonder if i was only aware af certain. cause i thought it only like 6 or 8 seabeyond May 2015 #125

Yes and if people aren't watching you'll have a hard time getting the media coverage you need to okaawhatever May 2015 #136

I think six is adequate given the number of candidates Gothmog May 2015 #197

The GOP debates made their candidates look like idiots because they *were* idiots. winter is coming May 2015 #180

i do remember and it was one of the things i liked that the democrats did. it seemed like 6 was seabeyond May 2015 #123

IIRC, the 3 debate forum for those who have the nomination, not for primaries. n/t freshwest May 2015 #191

Specifically, the 'rival:' elleng May 2015 #5

Nip this crap in the bud RobertEarl May 2015 #11

Good for O'Malley! merrily May 2015 #64

"Worked out with the Clinton campaign." AtomicKitten May 2015 #12

Expect a lot more shenanigans from the party BrotherIvan May 2015 #15

No doubt and it's bullshit. AtomicKitten May 2015 #40

Bernie ain't a Democrat, and O'Malley has not officially announced. Why would the DNC msanthrope May 2015 #34

Bernie is a declared candidate in the Democratic primary. AtomicKitten May 2015 #37

Really? Name the state he's registered in as a Democrat. Name the primary he's currently msanthrope May 2015 #39

He has declared that he is running for president as a Democrat. That's good enough for me. totodeinhere May 2015 #49

But apparently not legally sufficient in NH and some other states. msanthrope May 2015 #96

Well that is for his campaign to sort out. totodeinhere May 2015 #170

Seeing that Vermont does not have party registration... backscatter712 May 2015 #50

Which is great, theoretically. But not legally sufficient in say, NH. nt msanthrope May 2015 #97

You don't seriously think Sen. Sanders will be not be morningfog May 2015 #113

As of last week, the NH Secretary of State hasn't received the form msanthrope May 2015 #150

Gardner's I'll get back to you on Dean's run is hilarious. morningfog May 2015 #152

Gardner is always hilarious. msanthrope May 2015 #154

Then Walker won't be on the GOP ballet either forthemiddle May 2015 #144

Walker does look terrible in a tutu. FSogol May 2015 #172

He caucuses with Democrats in Congress. JDPriestly May 2015 #53

Not only does he caucus with Dems, Dems do not run anyone against him. merrily May 2015 #66

That's excellent info Flying Squirrel May 2015 #85

That's not really the point....Bernie can declare himself whatever he wants, but msanthrope May 2015 #98

The Democratic Party is more than fine with Bernie running as a Democrat. merrily May 2015 #68

That's not the point.....Bernie has to get on actual ballots. msanthrope May 2015 #99

So nice of you to worry about Sanders! merrily May 2015 #102

Oh....I'm not worried. I'm sure he's got someone who can figure out the msanthrope May 2015 #106

Name the state Obama is registered in. former9thward May 2015 #78

In 2008, and 2012, the President legally qualified on all ballots as a Democrat. msanthrope May 2015 #105

I was a resident of Chicago for 30 years and I don't need your FYI. former9thward May 2015 #145

You just said there's no party affiliation, but then described selecting a party ballot msanthrope May 2015 #149

I am not attacking anything. former9thward May 2015 #156

Cover your left eye, and read the line on the chart... brooklynite May 2015 #41

LOL Mountain meet mole hill. DURHAM D May 2015 #14

+100 nt okaawhatever May 2015 #33

6 debates are just fine. hrmjustin May 2015 #16

If you only want to see six then only watch six Bjorn Against May 2015 #18

This message was self-deleted by its author hrmjustin May 2015 #20

Ahem.....the 'rivals' thought they would have a "no gurls allowed" debate as a faux msanthrope May 2015 #29

This message was self-deleted by its author hrmjustin May 2015 #35

I have to admit I didn't read the article. hrmjustin May 2015 #38

What in the hell? TM99 May 2015 #65

If you are not a Hillary fan, you are sexist. That's self evident. Just accept it. merrily May 2015 #86

Puke it is for me! TM99 May 2015 #87

I just couldn't decide. merrily May 2015 #88

As I said in a thread in the Sander's group, TM99 May 2015 #89

The crap that has gone on at DU for years has nothing at all to do with Sanders. merrily May 2015 #90

Right....because using anonymous campaign sources to complain about HRC msanthrope May 2015 #101

An O'Malley spokesperson who wished to remain annoymous TM99 May 2015 #126

O'Malley doesn't have a campaign....and I have no problem with HRC fighting dirty. msanthrope May 2015 #153

Fight dirty with the Republicans, hell yes. TM99 May 2015 #185

O'Malley's adviser complained, but that doesn't mean his adviser is the anonymous source in that FSogol May 2015 #173

True. TM99 May 2015 #184

+1. Limiting the debates in this way doesn't serve voters' interests. n/t winter is coming May 2015 #23

+1. Exactly. Not Democratic primary voters, nor voters in the general. merrily May 2015 #69

+1 As if the number were the issue of the OP anyway. merrily May 2015 #67

for Hillary. There were 20 in 2008- no exclusivity SHIT cali May 2015 #92

They can push for more debates if they want more. hrmjustin May 2015 #133

I when to the link and this is what I found: Thinkingabout May 2015 #17

What right-wing opening words? This is a Democratic campaign adviser speaking, not a right-winger Bjorn Against May 2015 #21

Have you ever listened to Rush, Sean or other FOX reporters start a sentence with Thinkingabout May 2015 #24

WTF is this nonsense KMOD May 2015 #19

"One campaign advisor", huh... brooklynite May 2015 #27

See #29, above. msanthrope May 2015 #31

Psst! Anonymous whisper... n/t freshwest May 2015 #91

OOOHHHH. MY GODDDDD Evergreen Emerald May 2015 #30

Placing artificial limits on candidates' ability to communicate their platform Maedhros May 2015 #60

+1 Trouble recognizing problems and trouble admitting one recognizes a problem merrily May 2015 #71

Please. You are being led by propoganda. Evergreen Emerald May 2015 #129

The exclusivity clause is clearly bullshit. Maedhros May 2015 #162

Peddle your disinformation elsewhere. Maedhros May 2015 #164

Yes, because debates are the only place to communicate a platform Blue_Adept May 2015 #131

Bottom line: there is no good reason to limit the number of debates, Maedhros May 2015 #161

It's an attack of the... freshwest May 2015 #95

I love your bumpersticker Fresh. Tarheel_Dem May 2015 #110

It was made in Texas. Watch the GOPhers lose it! Every other word will be 'Communists!!!111!!' n/t freshwest May 2015 #192

Woah... Number23 May 2015 #195

What the hell is with that picture in the story? They did that on purpose and it was low. hrmjustin May 2015 #42

That is a bad picture. SoapBox May 2015 #43

That photo is exactly why this anti-Democratic Party spun piece was posted here. onehandle May 2015 #45

bs. Accusing a DUer of passing over other sources until he or she finds one with a bad photo merrily May 2015 #73

I don't even think it is a bad photo Bjorn Against May 2015 #79

Regardless, it's a bizarre accusation. This bs is beyond played out and needs to be called out. merrily May 2015 #81

+1... SidDithers May 2015 #109

Oligarchy desperately trying to control the election of their next puppet? L0oniX May 2015 #44

Why would we want fewer debates? So we have more time to watch attack ads? jalan48 May 2015 #48

We the people WOULDN'T want fewer debates. elleng May 2015 #52

I agree with that. It's a more open and educational process. jalan48 May 2015 #55

Money can't buy debate victories, but it can buy attack ads. Maedhros May 2015 #181

As Progressive Democrats is this where we call bullshit? jalan48 May 2015 #186

Oh yes, it's bullshit. Maedhros May 2015 #187

It's the kind of thing that will cost Hillary my vote if she's the party choice. jalan48 May 2015 #188

Hillary fans agree-- this is just fine and totally unbiased! Marr May 2015 #54

Who really needs a Democratic Party that's actually, you know, Democratic? merrily May 2015 #74

Kabuki in national politics? NEVER! merrily May 2015 #56

So an anonymous insider of an anonymous camaign claims the DNC is rigging the debate schedule? Agnosticsherbet May 2015 #57

OMG And THAT means every story in Business Insider is false? See also Reply 3. merrily May 2015 #76

The party doesn't get to pick the candidate AgingAmerican May 2015 #72

Sure seems to have been trying to do exactly that since 2012. merrily May 2015 #77

And the number of debates will take away your right to "pick the candidate"? Tarheel_Dem May 2015 #117

I've seen posters argue that: Maedhros May 2015 #182

Well, we wouldn't want public discourse interrupt the commercials paid for by lobbyists. Tierra_y_Libertad May 2015 #75

how about pay per veiw debates ? olddots May 2015 #80

I strongly disagree with six debates davidpdx May 2015 #93

This "exclusivity" thing is pretty fishy. HappyMe May 2015 #94

The RNC has an exclusivity clause also Gothmog May 2015 #103

Let the conspiracies begin. If anyone's "protecting" HRC, it's because 81% of us...... Tarheel_Dem May 2015 #111

That number will keep getting lower, morningfog May 2015 #114

Yeah, I'm gonna go ahead and say...I doubt it. But you keep plugging away anyhoo. Tarheel_Dem May 2015 #115

I guarantee it will get lower than 81% over the next morningfog May 2015 #118

So many predictions. You must be related to the Amazing Kreskin. Tarheel_Dem May 2015 #148

None of it requires any special power. morningfog May 2015 #151

Dkos: Who's the more 'serious' presidential candidate: Rand Paul or Bernie Sanders? Tarheel_Dem May 2015 #159

And your point? morningfog May 2015 #163

Oh, I think it's very meaningful. You just don't like what it means. Tarheel_Dem May 2015 #165

I have no problem with what it means. I just wonder why you feel the need to morningfog May 2015 #166

It was a national poll of "Democrats", by "Democrats", for "Democrats". And as for changing the.... Tarheel_Dem May 2015 #168

That photo is the appropriate response to the OP. Such nonsense deserves ridicule. greatlaurel May 2015 #120

!!! Tarheel_Dem May 2015 #157

I'm voting for the one on the right! But tin foil hats aren't good enough: freshwest May 2015 #190

LOL! That's perfect. Tarheel_Dem May 2015 #198

Safety first! n/t freshwest May 2015 #199

Another OP captures how ridiculous this is well stevenleser May 2015 #124

Well, that was special. I posted on it: freshwest May 2015 #196

Not enough debates, too many debates, they are not on the days that I like liberal N proud May 2015 #128

Negative campaigning works. NCTraveler May 2015 #143

The word "presumably" says everything anyone needs to know. cry baby May 2015 #147

Impossible - the Clintons would never take part in such machinations! polichick May 2015 #160

Hillary rivals demand a democratic clown car circus workinclasszero May 2015 #167

How many primary debates were there in 2008? I don't remember. But they were all good. freshwest May 2015 #200

There were no fewer than 26 Democratic Primary Presidential Debates in 2008. 26 Debates. NYC_SKP May 2015 #201

Who is this rival? Only one Democrat and one Socialist have announced geek tragedy May 2015 #171

The League of Women Voters can clear this up for you. bvar22 May 2015 #175

Oy vey...look at yet another thread of democrats screaming at each other NoJusticeNoPeace May 2015 #176

That headline is very dramatic. Raine1967 May 2015 #178

The exclusivity clause is also kind of a joke IMO, We're not having a debate, we are having a FSogol May 2015 #189

+1 good point. Raine1967 May 2015 #194

"Don't make me stop this damn car!" lpbk2713 May 2015 #183

So ... NanceGreggs May 2015 #193

K&R woo me with science May 2015 #204