After watching the Republican debate, I'm floored the Democrats aren't starting their debates.

[PatrickforO]

So, I have an idea:

Why don't we all begin calling Debbie Wasserman Schultz's office AT LEAST ONCE EVERY DAY until debate dates are moved forward. October 13th is too late.

Her number is 202-225-7931, and I bet if 50 or 60 thousand people called every day, the debates would get scheduled.

What do you think?

[FSogol]

1. Um, I think you should check out yesterday's news.

[PatrickforO]

3. What about yesterday's news? That the first one isn't 'til Oct 13? That's too late, I'm thinking.

[FSogol]

8. You call for the debates to be scheduled. They were scheduled yesterday. A debate in mid-September

would be great as would some specialized debates (on the environment or education). This doesn't seem like a "call congress right fucking now" moment to me.

[Armstead]

40. Your candidate complained about the schedule

[FSogol]

96. So?

[Fred Sanders]

46. If you can't just be outraged over a thing, then you must actually argue your point. Outrage is all

they can offer.

[PatrickforO]

215. The whole GOP message is based on fear.

[DesertRat]

179. Why is Oct. 13th too late?

It's four months before the 1st caucus and primaries.

[ancianita]

187. I'd like to know, that, too. This gives time for GOP mass stupidity to sink in with the public.

[pscot]

2. who do we have to call to get rid of

Debbie Wasserman Schultz?

[jonno99]

5. Chuckles...nt

[virtualobserver]

9. the Hillary National Committee, previously known as the DNC n/t

[JackInGreen]

13. +1

[KeepItReal]

59. Does 411 have that number?

I could use it also

[Fred Sanders]

4. A common mistake is thinking whatever that was by Fox last night was a "debate".

6 actually debates is plenty enough....versus a million cattle calls.

[jeff47]

7. 4 debates. Not 6.

16 states will vote before the last two debates.

[Cali_Democrat]

73. Wait....I thought there were going to be 6 debates

Now its 4?

[jeff47]

94. The last two are scheduled for after 16 states vote.

"Super Tuesday" is March 1st. At the end of "Super Tuesday", 16 states will have voted.

The last two debates are scheduled for "February/March". So far, the DNC has always gone with the later time with anything related to debates - From announcing the rules to announcing the schedule to the schedule itself. Assuming this pattern continues (and there's no reason to not do so), that means thoste last 2 debates will be in March, not February. And with the IA, NH, SC and NV elections in February, cramming those two debates into February will be very difficult.

And by that point, it is very unusual for the result to still be "up in the air". Making the last 2 debates moot.

At a minimum, IA and NH will only get 4. Getting a debate in between Feb 1 and Feb 9 is not going to happen. SC and NV have a very slim chance of getting debate 5 before they vote. But if it doesn't happen before NV, there's no way it's going to happen before "Super Tuesday". There is no way they will get a 6th in before March 1st.

[Cali_Democrat]

97. So there are 6 DNC-sanctioned debates. nt

[jeff47]

101. Only if you pretend the last two will not be canceled. (nt)

[Cali_Democrat]

104. So the last two are already scheduled to be canceled? Link? nt

[jeff47]

106. Already explained above.

Here, I'll quote myself. Perhaps you'll trouble your beautiful mind enough to read it this time.

"Super Tuesday" is March 1st. At the end of "Super Tuesday", 16 states will have voted.

The last two debates are scheduled for "February/March". So far, the DNC has always gone with the later time with anything related to debates - From announcing the rules to announcing the schedule to the schedule itself. Assuming this pattern continues (and there's no reason to not do so), that means thoste last 2 debates will be in March, not February. And with the IA, NH, SC and NV elections in February, cramming those two debates into February will be very difficult.

And by that point, it is very unusual for the result to still be "up in the air". Making the last 2 debates moot.

At a minimum, IA and NH will only get 4. Getting a 5th debate in between Feb 1 and Feb 9 is not going to happen. SC and NV have a very slim chance of getting debate 5 before they vote. But if it doesn't happen before NV, there's no way it's going to happen before "Super Tuesday". There is no way they will get a 6th in before March 1st.

[Cali_Democrat]

109. So there are still 6 DNC-sanctioned debates. nt

[jeff47]

110. If you think tax cuts always create a booming economy, yes.

If you actually believe in reality instead of press releases, no.

[Cali_Democrat]

111. So there are 4 debates. Do you have a link? I want to know why the DNC cancelled two of them. nt

[jeff47]

114. Perhaps you could pull out a calendar and try to follow along.

There are 4 debates scheduled before IA votes on February 1st. So unless you are handing out time machines, IA only sees 4 debates.

NH votes on February 9th. It will be extremely difficult to fit a debate in those 8 days, because the candidates are going to be campaigning like crazy in NH and the 5th debate is in Miami.

SC votes on February 20th. So there is a slim chance the Miami debate can be stuffed in those 11 days.

NV votes on February 23rd. There is no possible way to schedule a debate in those 3 days.

That leaves February 24th-29th before Super Tuesday on March 1st. It will be extremely hard to squeeze a debate into those 6 days with 12 more states to campaign in, none of which are Florida or Wisconsin (debate 6).

So getting at least a 5th debate in before March 1st is very difficult. Getting a 6th debate in is impossible.

So unless you think one candidate standing at a podium is a debate, there will not be 6 debates.

[Cali_Democrat]

115. The DNC said there will be 6 debates. I heard nothing about 4. Link? nt

[jeff47]

117. So, you can't handle basic math then?

I've explained it to you several time. Do you need me to draw a picture? Perhaps look up flight times between NH and Miami to demonstrate that traveling there for a debate takes away too much time?

Of course not. This current situation favors your candidate, so math does not matter.

[Cali_Democrat]

118. If the DNC changed their mind, I would like to know about it. Link? nt

[jeff47]

122. Why do you think the DNC changed their mind? I never said they did.

If the DNC decided to schedule the 5th and 6th debates for March 2018, would you continue to claim there will be 6 debates?

[Cali_Democrat]

125. So there actually are 6 scheduled debates. nt

[jeff47]

126. Nope. There are 4 debates. There are 2 more meaningless debates.

Gotten your alert to stick yet?

[Cali_Democrat]

127. Yesterday the DNC said 6. Do you have a link to where they changed it to 4? nt

[jeff47]

129. Yes.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=499838

Or would you count a debate scheduled for 2018?

[Cali_Democrat]

131. Nothing in that link says the DNC changed the number from 6 to 4. nt

[jeff47]

132. Oh, well maybe this one will.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=499684

[Cali_Democrat]

133. Nothing in that link says the DNC changed the number of sanctioned debates from 6 to 4. nt

[jeff47]

135. Oh, well maybe this one will help explain why.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=499838

Btw, you do realize you keep effectively bumping this thread, and lots and lots more people are seeing that the DNC is being dishonest about getting 6 debates in before the primaries, right?

[Cali_Democrat]

136. Still nothing saying DNC changed the number of sanctioned debates from 6 to 4. nt

[jeff47]

140. Oh. Well maybe this one will explain the problem.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=499684

Btw, thanks for all the extra attention you are providing to this point. Not a lot of people bothered to do the math on how 6 debates would fit in. So I'm seeing a lot more "6 is plenty" people now realizing that the DNC is playing them.

Without your tireless efforts to cut-and-paste instead of reading and properly responding to my posts, fewer people would have put two and two together and become upset about it.

[Cali_Democrat]

141. The DNC said they will sanction 6 debates, not 4. nt

[jeff47]

142. And there's a problem with their schedule. As explained by this link.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=499838

Which you keep helpfully pushing to the top.

[Cali_Democrat]

143. Nothing @ that link says the DNC changed the number of sanctioned debates. Still @ 6. nt

[jeff47]

144. Hence the word "problem".

See, words actually have meaning. So saying there is a problem and then illustrating the problem isn't something that can be refuted by saying "nuh-uh" over and over again.

But "nuh-uh" over and over again is great at letting more people know there is a problem.

[Cali_Democrat]

146. You said there will be 4 debates. The DNC has said there will be 6 sanctioned debates, not 4. nt

[jeff47]

151. Despite what the DNC is currently claiming, there will be 4 debates.

And I explained above why there will be 4 debates. Time.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=499838

[Cali_Democrat]

153. DNC said 6, not 4. nt

[jeff47]

156. Holy crap, I'm the DNC?! Oh wait...I'm not.

There will be 4 debates unless you have a time machine.

Do you have a time machine? 'Cause that would be handy. Clinton could go back and tell herself not to vote for the Iraq war or help destroy the safety net.

[Cali_Democrat]

158. The DNC said there will be 6 debates. I heard nothing about 4. nt

[jeff47]

167. Except repeatedly in this thread. Complete with a discussion of how the DNC

can't fit 6 into the schedule.

So far, your response is to insist I am speaking for the DNC.

[Cali_Democrat]

169. There is no actual proof in this thread that the DNC changed the number from 6 to 4. nt

[jeff47]

170. Good thing I never claimed they did!!

Instead, I pointed out they will not be able to fit in the last two debates before they are irrelevant.

[Cali_Democrat]

172. You said there will be 4. DNC said 6. You have no link to back up your claim. nt

[jeff47]

173. I would only need a link if I was claiming the DNC said 4.

But I never claimed the DNC said 4. Instead, I used basic math to point out there is not enough time to get 6 debates in before Super Tuesday.

Then I used the historical information that the vast majority of open presidential primaries are decided when the results of Super Tuesday come in.

You put those two together, and quickly realize that 2 of the 6 debates can not happen before they are irrelevant - one candidate standing behind a podium is not a debate. Then you add in a little bit more of history, and find out that the DNC usually cancels any "late" debates once they are irrelevant.

Now, just how many times do you want to lie about what I wrote?

[Cali_Democrat]

174. You said the DNC will only have 4 (no proof provided). DNC says 6. Who to believe?

[jeff47]

175. How 'bout the one who actually shows you a schedule

instead of "February/March"?

[Cali_Democrat]

176. DNC says 6, and they will release additional details. nt

[jeff47]

177. They have released details. Their details do not allow enough time to get all 6 in.

As pointed out by the schedule I discussed.

How'd we do in the 2014 elections? Because the DNC said we would do well. So if the DNC said we would do well, we must have done well, right?

[Cali_Democrat]

178. Details so far:

A total of six debates are scheduled, with six different sponsors: Oct. 13 in Nevada (hosted by CNN); Nov. 14 in Des Moines, Iowa (CBS/KCCI and The Des Moines Register); Dec. 19 in Manchester, New Hampshire (ABC/WMUR); Jan. 17 in Charleston, South Carolina (NBC/Congressional Black Caucus Institute); and two scheduled for either February or March in Miami, Florida, and Wisconsin, hosted by Univision/The Washington Post and PBS, respectively. The DNC said it would release additional details about debate dates, locations and partnerships soon.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/democrats-debate-schedule-nevada-october-13-121092.html?ml=po

[jeff47]

180. And I pointed out there is not enough time in February to fit in 2 debates.

And that fitting in one debate would be extremely difficult.

March 1st is Super Tuesday. So if this primary is like the vast majority of non-incumbent primaries, we will know the nominee on March 2nd. Making further debates irrelevant. And in the past, the DNC canceled debates after they were irrelevant.

Btw, that's why they don't have specific dates and times for debates 5 and 6 yet. There's little reason to expect them to occur.

[Cali_Democrat]

182. Who to believe, the DNC or an anonymous poster on the interwebz. nt

[jeff47]

192. Well, who's got the better track record?

DNC said 2010 and 2014 would be great for Democrats. How'd they do?

Also, you could attempt to point out where the debates would actually fit....but that runs into the problem of them not fitting.

[Cali_Democrat]

195. You're nothing more than an anonymous poster with no proof to back your claim. nt

[jeff47]

197. Then it would be so easy for you to show where those two debates fit in.

Heck, you could even address the fact that Iowa only gets to see 4 debates before they vote while you're doing it.

Instead, you just keep shouting "nuh-uh!!!!!"

[Cali_Democrat]

201. DNC says 6 sanctioned debates, not 4:

A total of six debates are scheduled, with six different sponsors: Oct. 13 in Nevada (hosted by CNN); Nov. 14 in Des Moines, Iowa (CBS/KCCI and The Des Moines Register); Dec. 19 in Manchester, New Hampshire (ABC/WMUR); Jan. 17 in Charleston, South Carolina (NBC/Congressional Black Caucus Institute); and two scheduled for either February or March in Miami, Florida, and Wisconsin, hosted by Univision/The Washington Post and PBS, respectively. The DNC said it would release additional details about debate dates, locations and partnerships soon.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/democrats-debate-schedule-nevada-october-13-121092.html?ml=po

[jeff47]

204. And their schedule does not allow all 6 to occur.

Yet you keep acting as if their statement somehow will alter time and space so that they can occur.

So either the DNC has discovered some exciting new physics, or those debates will not occur.

Yet you keep desperately clinging to the statement. Did we win in 2014 when the DNC said we would? Do you insist we won both Houses of Congress?

[Cali_Democrat]

205. Yet you provide no proof the DNC has cancelled any of the debates. nt

[jeff47]

207. Do you not understand the difference between future tense and past tense?

What part of "will" do you think means "already has"?

[Cali_Democrat]

208. Do you not understand the difference between 6 and 4? nt

[Cha]

202. Your patience is astoundingly admirable with dealing with CT, Cali!

rolf 6 debates!

[Cali_Democrat]

206. Thank you. I try my best

[OilemFirchen]

181. "Basic math"

John has six peanuts. He eats four, then discovers he is allergic. He throws the remaining two peanuts away.

Ergo, there were only four peanuts.

[jeff47]

185. Would only be relevant if "throwing them away" caused them to not exist.

But since debates are not physical objects, the analogy does not work well.

[OilemFirchen]

186. It's not an analogy.

Doesn't matter, though. What you posted is not mathematics.

[Agschmid]

189. Yup.

[jeff47]

191. First, counting is still math.

Second, you might have noticed I also posted the number of days between two dates. Using this amazing mathematics called "subtraction".

[Cali_Democrat]

193. You still have no real proof the number of DNC-sanctioned debates fell from 6 to 4. nt

[jeff47]

194. Do you have a time machine? 'Cause that's about the only way to fit them in. (nt)

[Cali_Democrat]

196. Still no real proof the number of sanctioned debates fell from 6 to 4. nt

[SwampG8r]

198. I'm kind of stupid let's see if I get what you are saying

You are saying the DNC has 6 scheduled but only 4 of them will matter as the last 2 happen after super Tuesday rendering them little impact.
I bet I got it .

[jeff47]

199. Almost. I'm saying the last two will be canceled after Super Tuesday. (nt)

[SwampG8r]

203. OK I hadn't taken an outright

Cancellation into it.

[Cali_Democrat]

210. The notion that two will be cancelled is nothing more than speculation with a little CT

thrown in for good measure.

[jeff47]

150. Oh, she knows. She's far too smart to not understand.

But constantly replying causes this thread to pop back up to the top of the GD: P forum, resulting in greater exposure. So I'm happy to keep pointing out the same problems to that wider and wider audience.

Besides, I got a few passes to refine the post in order to better express the point.

[Cali_Democrat]

188. Looks like your buddy just got banned. nt

[Agschmid]

190. Yup.

"Previously banned"... Shocker.

[Agschmid]

152. Welcome to DU.

[AtheistCrusader]

154. Jury Results.

On Fri Aug 7, 2015, 03:41 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Hence the word "problem".
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=500040

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

This poster is being an ass. The other poster has said nothing personal but this poster keeps insulting the other. Stop this petty crap, please review the subthread and see how the personal insults are one sided. Please hide this post and help stop the hate.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Fri Aug 7, 2015, 03:51 PM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: These "back-and-forth" so-called posts are boring and eventually leads to someone stepping over the line. Hard to see how this particular post is nothing more than another retort in a long line (16 I count) of retorts.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Frivolous alert. Stop wasting people's time.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No insult. I don't like alerts where the alert text is a lie.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Frivolous alert. Even if the post is abrasive, it doesn't reach the threshold to hide, not even close.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[jeff47]

157. Yeah, it became pretty obvious she was clicking alert on each one. (nt)

[AtheistCrusader]

159. Not anymore. (For the next 24h anyway)

[Cali_Democrat]

162. Wasn't my alert. nt

[Cali_Democrat]

161. I haven't alerted a single one of your posts in this thread. Also, I'm a he. nt

[jeff47]

165. My apologies. I had you confused with someone else. (nt)

[Cali_Democrat]

166. Apology accepted, but still no link proving the DNC changed the number from 6 to 4. nt

[Cha]

214. But, he was soooooooo Sure.. just like the "4 debates instead of 6" theory

[Agschmid]

155. Making personal again...

Not needed.

[Juicy_Bellows]

116. I don't mean to jump in here between you two but there is no need to be obtuse.

After 16 states have voted the outcome will likely be decided rendering the last two debates meaningless.

Are there 6 scheduled, yes. Are two of them scheduled too late to be of any use, most likely yes.

Cheers!

[Cali_Democrat]

120. So there are 6 scheduled debates. nt

[jeff47]

121. It's a mistake to believe she doesn't understand. She's fishing for a hide. (nt)

[Juicy_Bellows]

123. Well I tried.

I've learned my lesson.

Cheers!

[jeff47]

124. Thanks for trying. (nt)

[Agschmid]

138. Betcha it felt real nice to get that insult in.

Well played...

[Cha]

217. that's their MO.. must think it helps getting their point across.. when actually is says everything

about them and absolutely nothing about their target.

[virtualobserver]

12. plenty enough for Hillary

[Fred Sanders]

15. Common mistake thinking last night was a "debate". Seriously, it is early August, 2015. 2015.

[virtualobserver]

23. The exclusivity rule is totalitarian, not Democratic

People in the various primary states are upset with the DNC.....If someone in Iowa or any other state wants to hold a debate next week, Democratic candidates are forbidden to attend it unless they want to be excluded from the main DNC debates.

"Seriously"...... "Common mistake thinking" is that any of this is "Democratic"

[7962]

95. Good point

[RobertEarl]

16. Cattle calls?

So now you consider people exercising their right of Free Speech to just be cattle calls?

Thanks, Fred. Now we know what you think of people exercising their rights.

[Fred Sanders]

18. You think last night was a "debate"? On Planet Propaganda, maybe!

That is one shabby strawmen you got propped up there.

Last night was a cattle call, twisting that fact to attack the DNC, or me, or making it about "freedom of speech" is just gauche.

[RobertEarl]

20. Are you lost?

The topic is calling DWS and exercising our right of free speech, and you stated that 6 debates is enough, and that our 'Cattle calls' to DWS is somehow not wanted by you.

We get now what you think of the Democratic idea. It's all just cattle calls to you.

[SwampG8r]

200. I think

You misunderstand the phrase cattle call
A cattle call is an entertainment industry term meaning open audition.
The poster you are replying to meant the GOP debates were like an open audition and by limiting the number of debates we avoid looking the same.
He is still wrong but for completely different reasons

[NCTraveler]

22. Their reply really gives a glimpse of the thought process of some...

that they normally aren't willing to outright state like they did here. Very interesting to say the least. Their thoughts on bringing free speech into it also give some insight as to where they are coming from. A lack of understanding.

[RobertEarl]

30. eh?

It's all about free speech. There, there is your lesson for today. I can only hope you give it due consideration.

I quite understand that many hate the idea that we exercise free speech. As for me, I'm all for more and more free speech and more debates.

[NCTraveler]

31. Just going to leave this one stand. No comment necessary. nt.

[RobertEarl]

32. See ya

I notice you always come out on the short end of debates with me, so I don't blame you for hiding away.

That is a wise decision you have made to not try and go head to head with me.

[NCTraveler]

37. "I notice you always come out on the short end of debates with me, so I don't blame you for hiding."

I heart this.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026634558

[RobertEarl]

47. You must wonder

Why is it you can't debate me? Why is it you go off on tangents and not take a stand?

[NCTraveler]

52. I won't take time to educate adults about free speech on a progressive message board.

I believe people posting here in honest are very well educated on it. I see no reason to teach it to you. Lessons can be found online all over the place. It is not that I can't debate you, it's just something I learned in elementary school and have no interest in teaching you. Since you are directly asking me about personally debating you, I will simply say I have never seen you debate someone in fairness. You simply don't do it. I have wasted too much time here. Have a wonderful day and I do love your passion.

[RobertEarl]

57. How many times have you replied to me in posts?

Many, many times. Like you are in my fan club. You claim: "never seen you debate in fairness". Now look who is getting personal with their attacks!!

Again, you dance around, not getting to any point, yet taking a dig at me and even go so far as trying to lecture me while avoiding any true discussion or debate.

As for me, expect that from now on when you do reply to me, I will do as I have done here, today. Usually I just ignore you. Not any more.

[NCTraveler]

62. "How many times have you replied to me in posts?"

As of now, one more time than you have responded to me. I understand this is about "fans" for you. It is not for me. "Now look who is getting personal with their attacks!! " What does that have to do with anything, and where, in this line of posts, have I even mentioned it. That is your debate style. Strawman after strawman.

"Usually I just ignore you. Not any more."

I don't remember you ever not replying to a post of mine directed at you. As you won't here either. Another strawman. Might have happened once, but you just don't have it in you, no matter how wrong you are.

Instead of typing, look up free speech. It will help a lot and you will see there is simply no debate to be had here. You clubbed the term "free speech" with a bat.

"The topic is calling DWS and exercising our right of free speech"

No, it isn't.

"It's all about free speech."

Again, a complete lack of understanding.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026634558

I do love your passion.

[RobertEarl]

65. Yes it is

I feel awful adopting your style of debate, but like I said, I will no longer ignore you. First I have to come down to your level? Ewwwww.

I wrote : ""The topic is calling DWS and exercising our right of free speech"

You wrote "No, it isn't" ..... What kind of debate is that? You should read the OP again, apparently for the first time. It clearly states that we exercise our free speech by calling the PTB and demanding more debates. Clearly.

[NCTraveler]

71. +1

Love your passion.

"I will no longer ignore you." lol I had no clue I had been ignored.

[RobertEarl]

74. I am tired of it

So from now on expect a reply that contains the proper amount of due respect for you.

As again we see you have no honest debate, you just bait.

I think you may be looking in the mirror when you attack me?

[NCTraveler]

75. +1

I'm not debating you. I have said that. You are bringing much needed levity to my Friday afternoon. I appreciate it. As I said, your original comment stands on its own. I simply don't need to debate it. I find your litany of assumptions and thoughts on free speech to be amusing. Still wondering when you ignored me. lol. Love your passion. Thanks for the smile.

"the proper amount of due respect for you." I never made a request for your respect and don't really care to have it. Not sure why that would be pertinent to anything. I also don't care about any perceived personal attack as you keep mentioning. In my direction or yours. It just isn't as significant to me as it is you.

[RobertEarl]

83. Not significant?

Then why do you keep replying?

Like I said, I'm done ignoring your remarks to me.

As once again everyone here sees, you are not even on topic and you have no reasonable level of any debate about the topic. Your first post here was just an attack on me and it wasn't even a reply to me.

I am renting space in your head, it is obvious.

[NCTraveler]

85. "I am renting space in your head, it is obvious. "

I love this. Rent isn't really expensive at that location.

"Then why do you keep replying? "

Comedy gold. So, you will simply reply to anything I put. This could become even more fun.

Love the Friday afternoon smile and your passion.

[RobertEarl]

86. You got that right

"Rent isn't really expensive at that location."

That's why I used to ignore you. Well, I have decided to end that in hope you will stop with your off topic, personal attack comments.

[NCTraveler]

87. I missed my personal attacks.

"That's why I used to ignore you."

I just don't remember a time when you did ignore me. I can handle a follower. Specially if it is amusing to me. Or, should I say non-ignorer so it doesn't rise to the level of personal attack.




"Rent isn't really expensive at that location."

Shit, might even be free room and board.

[RobertEarl]

90. You deny what is right here?

"Rent isn't really expensive at that location."

I think that says it all right there. You have described your space better than I ever could. That is why, until now, all your replies to me for months have been ignored.

Gonna keep digging?

*******************

Dear DU readers, I do apologize for this exchange with NC here.

[NCTraveler]

92. Not just cheap, possible free to the right tenant.

Any chance I could get you to not ignore me here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251499048

and here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027024497

Thank you my passionate friend.

[7962]

98. Link goes to deleted thread

[NCTraveler]

102. I know. nt.

[Fred Sanders]

36. Indeed. Me too...no reply necessary.

[RobertEarl]

51. Yeah, we get it

You are not in favor of, actual, ya know, debates. The less debates the better is what you stated.

As for the rest of us, more debates means more democracy in the exercise of free speech.

We have two candidates who want more debates. And one who is hiding just hoping to have a coronation.

That lays bare the situation.... no reply is expected since anti-democracy on DU is not cool, man, not cool.

[ieoeja]

91. Neither of those posters are making the slightest bit of sense.

Is it some sort of secret code? I'm halfway thinking of alerting on your post to which they see "no need to reply" just to find out if somebody on the jury can explain what the fuck it is they see so horrible about your post.

[RobertEarl]

93. That's how I see it, too

I am only trying to figure out what they are trying to say.

Of course, since we are in opposition as far as Democratic debates go; with me in favor of more, I can only surmise the worst.

[Armstead]

48. As bad as it was, it affected the campaigns and candidates...

It was Fox and the GOP and a huge slate of potential candidates. So naturally it was going to be awful.

Howevr, it did serve to advance the process. Candidates got visibility and demonstrated their strengths and weakness to the public. Some like Kasic and Carly F. became (at least temporarily) more visible and were seen more as viable candidates. Others did badly, and voters had a chance to see that. (Trump may have damaged himself.)

In other words it made it more of a campaign.

The Democratic debates have fewer candidates all of them bettwr than the jokers last night. It could also be presented in a more dignified manner.

It;s needed soon.

[Sheepshank]

68. 100 Models being called in to cull the numbers to 1 or 2 is called a cattle call too.

and they are not even talking...although I suppose you could call posing a form of free speech. One of my kids has been to several cattle calls....granted it's not very complimentary, and is unkind on many levels, but it's out there are used with frequency. I do believe it ftis the bill for the GOP hopefuls since it's a term often used to gather a too bid group in order to compare and reduce numbers.

as it turns out...you outrage here is a little misguided.

[RobertEarl]

77. You may be right

I replied to Fred who wrote:
"6 actually debates is plenty enough....versus a million cattle calls."

And the OP is about calling DWS demanding more debates.

Fred had the chance to explain himself, yet he declined. If Fred is so confused as to include two wholly different ideas in one sentence then it does behoove him to clear it up. To me, his writings appear as not much more than a cattle call.

Of course, we do disagree on the first premise that 6 debates is enough.

And if he considers that we call DWS and ask for more than 6 debates, as cattle calls, then we are in opposition. Frankly, Fred shanked it, sheepishly so.

[whatchamacallit]

34. "6 actually debates is plenty enough"

Is that an expert opinion based on sound metrics or just your Dad Voice?

[Fred Sanders]

42. Is this an adult opinion forum or a crib for juvenile thinking? The GOP clown train needs to shed a caboose

or two, there is no need for Democrats, all our traincars look just fine!

[whatchamacallit]

55. The quality of your metaphor

makes your question more difficult to answer.

[frylock]

119. Why do you go from one extreme to the other?

that's what conservatives do. Nobody here is asking for a million, or a hundred debates. What people want is for the DNC to rescind their plan to sanction anybody who debates outside of their forum. 10-12 events should suffice.

[PatrickforO]

216. You know, Jeff47 makes a pretty good point below.

If two of the six scheduled debates are scheduled after just under a third of the primaries have ALREADY taken place, it may be a safe assumption to say, 'yes but those last two may be cancelled BECAUSE OF THAT.'

I agree with that, and I agree with what he says in another post on this string about the Overton window.

WE'VE GOT TO GET THE MESSAGE OUT, and the party structure needs to FACILITATE THAT instead of inhibiting it.

[winter is coming]

6. First Dem date is schedule for October.

Yes, we're letting the GOP have two full months to circulate their bullshit in primetime, plus all the media coverage the follows, without having any debates of our own.

[frazzled]

14. I think it's great strategy to let the 17-member nut panel play itself out

It's a circus and people need to get bored with the circus before they'll pay a bit of attention to the Democrats.

It's still 6 months till the first primary/caucuses. Six debates are plenty, especially with this small field. Honestly, with all the debates in 2008 it was nothing but repetition after repetition. And we don't need more so that people who might miss them can catch one, even: you can always watch them on the Internet.

Finally, our debates have nothing to do with the Republican debates. This isn't the general election. It's two separate PRIMARIES. Their debates are focused on garnering Republican voters; ours are to garner Democratic voters. It's how parties choose their candidates. (I ignore Independent voters because they are almost always Republican or Democratic voters who don't want to admit they're part of an organized party; those "undecideds" are the ones who don't watch debates anyway, so forget about them.)

The debates during the general election are another thing altogether.

[winter is coming]

17. By the time we start, they'll be bored with debates, period.

And wondering why the Dems aren't doing anything. The swing voters in the middle will have bought into the GOP bullshit. Delaying the debates that much obviously favors Hillary, and a lot of casual voters will be turned off by the appearance of corruption. We're shooting ourselves in the foot.

[frazzled]

19. There are no swing voters

Or at least they're a pretty rare breed. It's more or less a myth. Especially in these highly divided, partisan times. And if they're that undecided, they're not glued to their TVs watching every debate and following arcane policy issues.

Stop sweating it. People are on vacation. They're not even paying attention at all until after Labor Day. A primary is a contest between a party's candidates for the party's nomination. It's not a battle with the other party.

[Agschmid]

33. This is the primary not the general.

The swing voters are all democrats *hopefully*...

This is NOT big issue IMO. Media is very different today and debate after debate won't do much to change anyone opinions. This primary is already very polarized within our own party.

[winter is coming]

49. Yeah, it is a big deal. There would be no need for an exclusivity clause

if this debate schedule were "no big deal". Whether DWS intended it or not, this looks like she's tilted the playing field in Hillary's favor. Really dumb idea. Nothing turns off voters faster than seeing that the game is rigged.

[Agschmid]

53. IMO nothing turns off voters than rediculous debates like we saw last night.

[jeff47]

168. No, nothing turns off you. You are not "voters".

The Republican base loved it. They are Trump.

Letting these all these debates go unanswered just moves the Overton window in the Republican's favor.

[PatrickforO]

212. Your darned right! The exclusivity clause really sucks.

[MADem]

10. That's just a lousy idea. Let the GOP have the spotlight! Don't distract from this Klown Kar Krash

with "other information."

The only reason I would call that number is to tell DWS "Great job!"

You do realize they can trace your number, and they'll know it's you calling in an harassing fashion every day? It's not like the same cranks, calling over and over, represent a "groundswell."

It just makes it harder for you to get clearance for the WH tour.

[kenfrequed]

56. Right...

But it ends up making Democrats look spotty or out of touch. Giving the Republicans a week or two to be skewered by the daily/nightly show or John Oliver makes sense. Giving them almost two months is idiotic.

I have no idea why we wouldn't want to contrast insanity with sanity every other week.

Unless DWS is more concerned with the front runner winning the nomination than the Democrats winning the White House ornlocal elections.

[MADem]

63. There's so many of them--we're not talking about a two week snack on the GOP, we're

talking about a seventeen course meal.

[kenfrequed]

66. That doesn't even make sense

So waiting for over a month is going to somehow magically make their own free media evaporate.

If you think this is actually going to do the Democratic party any favors I have a bridge to sell you.

[MADem]

79. If people are talking about what a big mouth Trump is, or how nervous Jeb! was, or how truculent

and un-Presidential Rand Paul was, I think you should LET THEM.

And sorry--you are wrong. Debates closer to elections are what make a difference.

[kenfrequed]

89. These arent general election debates.

These are primary debates.


Taking two months off from our own debates invites the Republican clown car to frame all the issues and define more of the parameters of the election.

I know that debates are inconvenient to some candidates but if my candidate can't handle a debate within his own party then I have to look for a candidate that can. We are democrats. Let's act like it.

[MADem]

130. I still don't understand what you are griping about.

You don't need a debate to figure out where two or three candidates stand on issues. That's usually what they're for--to sort out differences.

You want to play gotcha, I think--but you might not get what you expect if you play that game.

Debates are useful to see who can take the heat, but it's not like we've got 17 fools clamoring for our attention. There are two people running, and a spare who appears sincere but isn't breaking out in the polling. The others are just farting around, looking for attention. The longer we wait, the sooner they might just toddle off, because they aren't serious.

IA and NH are more important contests for the GOP because the electorate in those states more closely reflects Republican voters. They aren't viewed as must-wins for Democrats (in fact, Barack Obama and Bill Clinton didn't come first in NH on their first outings in that state--Bill Clinton took under three percent of the vote in the IA caucuses on his first try, thanks to a favorite son run by Tom Harkin). Our electorate is more diverse than the populations of those states, so super Tuesday is more indicative of our voter bloc. It's not indicative of "inconvenience," it has more to do with timing messaging so it's reaching the greatest number of likely/possible Dem voters at an optimal point in time.

That mess last night wasn't about framing--it was about The Donald bloviating, and a really good down and dirty fight between CC and Randy Paulbot. Most people would call that unprofessional clusterf-ck a "hot mess." A lot of people like Big Time Wrestling, just not on the debate stage.

[kenfrequed]

147. Ok...

I give up.

You have an agenda already. I get that.

You know the ironic thing is that more debates would probably hurt Sanders by pumping up the other candidates running in the single digits. Currently Sanders is the presumptive primary challenge to Hillary. He is having no trouble getting crowds, engergy, and momentum.

I thought more debates was sort of the idealistic Democratic thing and let the chips fall where they may.

[MADem]

164. My "agenda" is getting people excited about Democratic candidates close to elections that matter.

Webb and Chaffee are not serious. They're sunbathing or something.

O'Malley is, but he's more like the lion in the bush, tipping along after the two front runners and hoping for a stumble, and then he'll eat his fill and emerge, fresh and energized, should he get lucky. He's being judicious about his press, and doing things like running off to Puerto Rico (serious problems down there--bankrupt commonwealth and horrific drought) to get a grasp on "issues" and show himself to be able to diversify his interest and attention. And even if he doesn't get lucky, he's running for either VEEP or more likely, a cabinet post.

You've got two pros (who like each other) running in the top slots--Sanders hasn't had a lot of tough opposition, for the most part, but he's had a few contested races so he knows how to debate. He also knows how to take questions off-the-cuff; he does a lot of those town halls and those Vermonters don't mince words. He can give as good as he gets. HRC is a flat-out pro. She knows how to handle questions and get a dig in at a questioner if they're being jerks. It's just not news though--it's what we, the interested voters (and those are the only people paying attention to this stuff right now) already know.

The GOP are trying to cut down their numbers, but they, too, want to do it while most people aren't paying attention. There's no way that they can put lipstick on that trainwreck last night (to mix a few metaphors). It was ghastly and petty and stupid. We're better than that--but that's what we'd get, a bunch of gotcha questions on cultural issues and nothing about what's troubling the nation. People aren't ready to bear down on this aspect--they want sugar-rush candy and drama. After all, forcing candidates to talk about abortion rights rather than how the deficit will impact future generations is what gets the "wrestling fan" people all excited--even though it's pointless.

[daleanime]

11. We are not only waiting another 2 1/2 months for our First debate.....

the republicans will have another one before we even start.

Now why are we giving an advantage to the other party?

[whatthehey]

21. You think that was an advantage?

Anybody looking at that and thinking positively in any way is already an ideological Republican with zero chance of voting Dem, ever. Let them turn off the independents on their own dime. One of those Art of War quotes, or Napoleon, can never remember which, says in paraphrase "if your enemy is making a mistake, do nothing to interrupt him".

[daleanime]

25. Are people talking about Democrats or republicans today?

[Agschmid]

39. Republicans...

But they are being mostly mocked by most media outlets I'm listening too.

"The loser was women"

"They all love war"

"Jeb is weakest candidate and came off as such"

"DNA schedules show at the minute of conception it's a baby"

[daleanime]

69. If you don't use it.....

you lose it.

We are going to disagree. Sorry about that.

[Agschmid]

134. We are. No biggie.

[winter is coming]

27. Lots of coverage on GOP candidates, leading up to and following the debate,

in addition to the primetime debate itself. They're getting their faces and their sound bites out there. We're getting bupkis. Only on Opposite World could this be construed as a win for us.

[daleanime]

70. Amen.....

[Armstead]

50. Whether an advantage or not has to do with how was done and the candidates

It doesn't reflect on the need for debates.

It did affect the GOP field in terms of whether individual candidates are considered "viable" or not.

I am amazed that people here re arguing against the benefits of having an actual campaign.

[daleanime]

72. It is kind of strange...

I just look at it this way, if I like my candidate, and the ideas they're putting forth, I want them in the spot light as often as possible for as many people as possible.

[Sheepshank]

24. I really don't see this as an advantage for the GOP

fact of the matter is most of the public, including Conservatives, will forget which of the 17 (is it down to 17?) stood for which platform. the electorate generally remembers those who spoke last, no first.

[daleanime]

26. I see no advantage for us....

in letting them go first, be unanswered and having the spot light more often.

[Sheepshank]

29. political strategy isn't like boxing or basketball

there is no long term advantage to looking like a fool, first.

[daleanime]

67. How many times was Bu$h the lesser elected?

[Agschmid]

41. This is a PRIMARY election. NOT the general I don't understand why people...

are treating this like the general election?

[daleanime]

76. Because we now spent twice the time in the primaries....

then in general elections?

Because people have become increasingly disillusioned with the choices we're allowed in the general election?

Takes a lot of time to turn the ship of state?

[Agschmid]

35. How is what happened last night an advantage...

It's not.

[daleanime]

81. So who has the spot light....

and is talking about why last night's circus was so bad?

If you're out shopping and you need to get food for the week, but everything on the shelf is disgusting, it doesn't help you that the good stuff is out back if you have no way of knowing that.

If we believe in our candidates, we have to show them off. The only reason we wouldn't is because we don't.

[Agschmid]

113. The answer is idiots.

And everyone is pointing out they are idiots... And this isn't grocery shopping it's an election that's a flawed comparison.

[Cha]

218. I think the "advantage" is for Democracy. The gop is exposing their idiots early

and often.. just like in 2012.

[Fred Sanders]

221. Thank you for also not having amnesia, Cha. Amnesia is a real big problem in American politics.

As you can see from this thread.

[restorefreedom]

44. because dws wants hillary to get the nom no matter what

even if it costs the dems the general. she is not thinking of the good of the country or even her own party.

[daleanime]

82. Unfortunately....

very possible. I hope not, but I see no other reason that makes any kind of sense.

[7962]

139. Because almost NOTHING said today will be remembered 12 months from now nt

[Thinkingabout]

28. Well, since there are 16 declared GOP candidates, the DNC has 5 major candidates, the GOP is holding

11 debates, the DNC is holding 6 debates, if you divide the time per candidate you will see the DNC is quiet generous and will have more exposure than the GOP candidates.

[Doctor_J]

38. having seen how much Hillary flip flops on issues, the committee decided it's better to

let the republicans lies and propaganda go unchallenged than to make her defend her positions in front of Sanders and omalley.

[Agschmid]

43. All our candidates sent tweets, emails, texts last night.

The questions aren't unanswered.

[Le Taz Hot]

222. Cool! So, where does she stand on the TPP?

I must have missed that. Oh, and the XL Pipeline. Thanks in advance for the Tweet text or is that twext?

[Agschmid]

223. So that wasn't even a question the Republicans had to face.

But who knows she hasn't stated, I think we can all make an assumption but she isn't my candidate so I don't really have an opinion on this.

[Le Taz Hot]

224. . . .

"All our candidates sent tweets, emails, texts last night. The questions aren't unanswered."

So, if they were "unanswered," then the two issues I raised should be easily addressed. I did do a Google search and there doesn't seem to be a clear answer so, once again, I ask, "Where does she stand on the TPP and the XL Pipeline" since "the questions aren't unanswered."

[Agschmid]

225. Those two issues weren raised.

It didn't even get asked... That's how rediculous that debate was.

[restorefreedom]

45. the timing of dws announcement was no accident either

she knew people were going to be pissed about the fact that the first in debate isn't going to be until October. Everything they do is calculating, so she announced it the day before the Republican debate so that it would get swept under the carpet when everybody started focusing on Donald Trump and his band of idiots over on the Republican side. But that freak show hoopla is going to die down after a few days, and then people to start wondering why aren't the Democrats coming out and talking?

why indeed.

[Armstead]

54. I'm floored that people here are actually arguing against the democratic process n/t

[RobertEarl]

58. They want a coronation

They are having hissy-fits because we won't bow down. So they go so far as oppose democracy in order to get their way.

[Fred Sanders]

60. I am "floored" Bernie supporters are calling DWS a "shit" in the protected group!

Response to Le Taz Hot (Reply #3)Fri Aug 7, 2015, 09:34 AM

cascadiance (17,390 posts)

6. I'd say DWS stands for Debbie Weasel Sh*t!

Describes her character more!

..................


Public post, publicly repeatable, publicly called out.


Why do folks think they need to be vulgar and outraged at everything? What difference does it make?

[MADem]

64. +1,000! It's incredible. nt

[Armstead]

108. I'll agree with you on that one

There's a line between criticism of a candidate, and obnoxious insults. That one crossed it

[mythology]

88. No they really aren't

They are arguing over the timing and frequency of primary debates. They aren't arguing for doing away with the debates or the primaries.

You just look silly and undermine any argument you make when you resort to making things up to disparage other people.

[Armstead]

107. Just sayin'...Seems to be a pattern

Whether one believes there should be more debates and sooner seems to fall in line with what candidate one supports.

Support the pee-selected candidate backed by the party establishment? Debates bad. waste of time and money,

Support one of the challengers who is getting no visibility, and believes debates are necessary to allow voters to hear from all of the candidates? We need debates.

I say we need debates.

[Agschmid]

145. Just FYI...

This is the DNC Mobile Homepage...



Can you believe they have O'Malley, Webb, and Chaffee over Bernie and Hillary? Hey wait... They have Bernie! Isn't he not even a Dem? They must really be supporting the pre-selected candidate... Those bastards.



The more this meme gets pushed the more rediculous it seems.

[Armstead]

183. You'll note that BOTH of the more visible candidates are on the bottom row

Nice that they showed their pictures. How about letting people hear from them?

[Agschmid]

184. Yes usually the top tier candidates are on the top row...

Weird, seems they are helping the little guys.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

61. But, but, but...

We have to wait fir some reason..

[liberal N proud]

78. The Clowns put on a circus...

Doesn't mean the Democrats have to follow in their footsteps.

Let's let the media and public wallow in their in the slop for a while.

[Vincardog]

80. Wrong Number call DNC #202 863 8000

[cp]

112. Yes, 202-863-8000 is correct

Other number is DWS Congressional office. Calling the DNC got me into DWS's voicemail.

When Dems debate, we'll be setting our narrative, not just reacting to Clown Car.

[PatrickforO]

211. Thanks for the correction.

[Politicalboi]

84. We still have over a year to go

If this were August 2016 then yes, they need to get on the ball.

[RobertEarl]

100. I have an idea

That besides keeping Hillary from embarrassing herself on national TV, the heads of the DNC are just plain scared of the real Democratic message being on TV since the heads are more republican than true Democrats.

[Historic NY]

220. Your embarrassing yourself.....

she has been on TV more than a few times front of large audiences. In your zeal to try to tell the DNC how to run things you forget they got Obama through twice 8 yrs. Seems the message got through there, didn't it.

[RobertEarl]

226. Hillary debated Obama and lost

I don't get where you get off with your personal attacks.

I know you love Hillary, and are in favor of less democracy via less debates, but that gives you no reason to launch such personal attacks.... I think you are looking in the mirror as you do?

[jeff47]

137. No, we have 6 months to go.

First election is February 1st.

[eridani]

219. That was true in 2007 as well, when we had ALREADY HAD eight debates n/t

[George II]

99. "if 50 or 60 thousand people called every day, the debates would get scheduled."

Psssst, don't tell anybody, they ARE scheduled!

[fredamae]

103. Does DWS WANT Dems to Lose? (again) n/t

[Agschmid]

149. ... Obama?

And remember the people who lost ran from Obama, that was there mistake.

[d_legendary1]

160. She's got a good track record

After all, she picked up a former Republican with a checkered past, slapped the D on him, and passed him off as a progressive. Nobody voted for him and the incumbent won as a result.

[DinahMoeHum]

105. Why interfere with that GOP garbage fire from last night?

Thankfully, I didn't watch it - I was at a monthly meeting of computer geeks and newbies listening to a demonstration on Windows 10.

Seems I didn't miss much.

[jeff47]

171. To keep the Overton window from drifting to the right.

Letting the garbage go unanswered makes the garbage "normal".

[Smarmie Doofus]

128. Kick. n/t

[napi21]

163. Initially I was in agreement with you, BUT, after last night, I'm leaning the other way.

I was having fun ridiculing the various Pubs and their comments during last nights 2 clown shows. My hubby had been in the den watching whatever his choice for the night was. He walked out into the LR around 10:30 and said (in a very disgusted tone) "How long are we going to have to listen to THIS CRAP again?" I laughed and responded, "OH, about another 15 months."

He grumbled and went off to bed, but I started thinking...how many people are there like him in the US? Maybe starting with debates & TV Ads over a year before the election really IS too soon. I know all of us get really tired seeing & hearing that stuff a while', especially since there's very little "NEW" after a while. Maybe Debbie is right in waiting for a few months and let the Pubs become old and boring and mostly ignored, and let the Dems come on the scene Fresh & New 2 months later. A year prior to the election in my mind is still way too long to campaign, but it's at lease a little shorter. I'd still love to see it changed to the way the Brits do it.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2010-05-14/opinion/ct-oped-0514-british-20100514_1_campaign-spending-candidates-election-day

Conservative Party leader David Cameron ousted Gordon Brown as prime minister of the United Kingdom. On Tuesday, Brown resigned his post and Cameron moved to No. 10 Downing St. The campaign lasted one month and virtually nothing was spent by either campaign, compared with U.S. standards.

The national election in the U.K. should be a wake-up call to Americans.

Campaign spending in this country is out of control.

In the 2008 presidential race, the candidates spent a total of $1.7 billion, double what was spent in the 2004 race. In the U.K. election, a spending cap of 20 million pounds, about $33 million, was imposed on each of the major parties. Of course, campaigns there are less expensive partly because of a ban on paid radio and TV advertising or any ads on matters of "political or industrial controversy."

[DonCoquixote]

209. The typical argument is

"why we will wait till the GOP self destructs, and come in looking great!"

Well, for one, that is lazy as hell, and people will see that. If Hillary is so bloody inevitable, she should be able to be exposed in the air without spoiling.

For two: we just gave whoever does emerge from that trainwreck more of a spotlight. Be it Jeb, Scott or yes, even bad haircut, that person will get at least a month before us to use all the hype they can buy, and that means September can be a major month to turn heads.

Even if God ordains that Hillary will be the nominee, with 100 percent accuracy, we DO need to think of next year, why, because the GOP sure as hell is. Hillary needs to be DEFINED, and if she just allows the GOP to play with no media response of her own, then people will see someone that is willing to let the GOP run amok.

[PatrickforO]

213. Yes. That's it.

Debates help define candidates and help them get the word out. And whose bright idea was to schedule the last two debates after a bunch of states have already had their primaries? Those are gonna get cancelled for sure.

There's just a stink about the whole thing. And it's coming from the Dem establishment.