Clinton campaign: Future debates depend upon Sanders' tone - Polidicks

[quote]Hillary Clinton's chief campaign strategist laid into Bernie Sanders' camp on Monday for its insistence upon a debate before the April 19 primary in New York, remarking that the Vermont senator has reneged on his promise to avoid running a negative campaign and therefore does not get to dictate the terms of any future debates.[/quote] [quote]“Because I think the real question is what kind of campaign is Sen. Sanders going to run going forward," Benenson remarked. "He pumped $4 million in the weekend before March 15, and he lost all five states on March 15. They spent about $4 million running negative ads.” [B]“This is a man who said he’d never run a negative ad ever. He’s now running them, they’re now planning to run more," he continued. "Let’s see the tone of the campaign he wants to run before we get to any other questions.”[/B][/quote] [URL]http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-dem-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/03/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-debates-221292[/URL] Sanders campaign wants a debate in NY before the primary. Clinton camp claims that he's being too negative, and that he "therefore does not get to dictate the terms of any future debates." I guess Clinton is the only one allowed to make negative claims. [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kiEkLr8Zf7Y[/media]

Sanders has a chance of winning so no more debates from Hillary :v:

What "negative" ads is he running? I have yet to see an ad from him that "attacks" anyone. Unless you consider stating facts about clinton an "attack" in which case i think back the hashtag #FactsAreNotAttacks [editline]oops my merge[/editline] But if he is running an ad that attacks Hillary or anyone else for that matter, would someone mind linking it?

any examples of the negative ads?

-sorry, merge-

In other words they realized that despite nearly all the debates being rigged, especially CNN's, he was still starting to win them so the only way to win is not to play.

Most likely she doesn't have as much to gain from a NY debate as Sanders does. Don't know why she couldn't come up with a better excuse, though.

After a quick google search, this is suppoesdly the ad that is "attacking" Hillary. [URL="http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/265951-clinton-campaign-decries-sanders-negative-ad"](Source)[/URL] [video=youtube;8pmw5CAc3rk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pmw5CAc3rk[/video] and my only question is How? Again he's stating what shes done for the last few decades that she's been a politician in multiple different offices. Facts aren't attacks. Not to mention Clinton isn't the only one who's done the things with Wall St. that he's trying to fight against. It's a bit telling that she and her campaign staff immediately assume it's about her. Makes her look very guilty.

She is running scared... She thinks Sanders will remain close to her in NY and she doesn't wan't to lose her state.

If you can't handle Sanders, how the hell are you going to handle Trump or any world leaders?

They ran these in Hawaii, which mention Iraq: [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QEy0mxfFaM[/media] [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7mXT_OuDyM[/media] There are also his ads attacking Wall Street, NAFTA and the oil industry: [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nQYZ9OgjvQ[/media] [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tU5oghn67cQ[/media] [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4kcH42oxYw[/media] I'd hardly categorize any of these as "negative". They're fair criticisms of an opponent's ties to industries that she claims to oppose. If she can't handle actual criticism from Sanders, I have no idea how she'll handle character attacks from Trump or Cruz.

If Bernie doesn't get to decide when there are debates, who does? Clinton? That's stupid, what a joke!

This election really is a bunch of babies trying to whine louder than the others

[QUOTE=ThePanther;50022780]If Bernie doesn't get to decide when there are debates, who does? Clinton? That's stupid, what a joke![/QUOTE] They usually agree on when and where their debates are. Hillary wanted a debate in New Hampshire, and Sanders wanted one in Michigan, California, and New York. Hillary didn't agree to having a debate in New York, but she did settle for Sander's backup choice of Pennsylvania.

If I were Sanders I would use this against her. "She is afraid to debate me, because in the last 5 debates we've had, it is pretty clear that the voters liked me better"

If he wants a debate in NY give him one. What are you afraid of, Hilary? If you're truly worthy of the highest office in the land it should be a cinch. [QUOTE=Potus;50022821]This election really is a bunch of babies trying to whine louder than the others[/QUOTE] Welcome to politics, and why so many...myself included...are largely apathetic about it all.

Jesus fuck this is the dumbest thing she could do. If she can't handle Bernie, Trump is going to eat her alive.

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;50023076]Jesus fuck this is the dumbest thing she could do. If she can't handle Bernie, Trump is going to eat her alive.[/QUOTE] That's my biggest issue with Hillary. She might poll decently against him but if they ever start debating she is going to be torn into fucking PIECES by trump.

Isn't the whole point of this process to have [i]more[/i] dialogue and discussion of the issues? What the fuck Hillary.

[QUOTE=rilez;50022751]They ran these in Hawaii, which mention Iraq: [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QEy0mxfFaM[/media] [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7mXT_OuDyM[/media] There are also his ads attacking Wall Street, NAFTA and the oil industry: [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nQYZ9OgjvQ[/media] [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tU5oghn67cQ[/media] [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4kcH42oxYw[/media] I'd hardly categorize any of these as "negative". They're fair criticisms of an opponent's ties to industries that she claims to oppose. If she can't handle actual criticism from Sanders, I have no idea how she'll handle character attacks from Trump or Cruz.[/QUOTE] And despite these criticizing clinton they seem to be more focused on communicating Sanders' policies than putting down clinton (run-time wise at least).

[QUOTE=phygon;50023095]That's my biggest issue with Hillary. She might poll decently against him but if they ever start debating she is going to be torn into fucking PIECES by trump.[/QUOTE] Indeed. He is NOT afraid to run attack ads, hell he's probably already got several nukes ready and waiting. He will destroy her and not think twice about it. She's using a trebuchet to sling shit, he's using fucking ICBMs.

I just genuinely [I]cannot[/I] fathom how anyone could be enthusiastic about Clinton. Voting for her because you don't think Sanders is viable.. Sure, okay. But how can [I]anyone[/I] be an actual supporter of her on an emotional or personal level? How can anyone have any level of genuine appreciation or enthusiasm for someone this ridiculous?

[QUOTE=srobins;50023167]How can anyone have any level of genuine appreciation or enthusiasm for someone this ridiculous?[/QUOTE] read that back to yourself but instead of a lying politician picture a businessman with terrible hair and skin yellow enough you'll think he has liver cancer

[QUOTE=rilez;50022751]They ran these in Hawaii, which mention Iraq: [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QEy0mxfFaM[/media] [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7mXT_OuDyM[/media] There are also his ads attacking Wall Street, NAFTA and the oil industry: [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nQYZ9OgjvQ[/media] [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tU5oghn67cQ[/media] [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4kcH42oxYw[/media] I'd hardly categorize any of these as "negative". They're fair criticisms of an opponent's ties to industries that she claims to oppose. If she can't handle actual criticism from Sanders, I have no idea how she'll handle character attacks from Trump or Cruz.[/QUOTE] Oh great he opposed the keystone XL because... Oh because it was the popular thing among left wing liberals and not because it made any sense at all

[QUOTE=proboardslol;50023315]Oh great he opposed the keystone XL because... Oh because it was the popular thing among left wing liberals and not because it made any sense at all[/QUOTE]yeh man all those tribal communities and environmental scientists are just jumping on the ol left wing bandwagon, shove the oil in my mouth please

[QUOTE=benzi2k7;50023333]yeh man all those tribal communities and environmental scientists are just jumping on the ol left wing bandwagon, shove the oil in my mouth please[/QUOTE] It was a shortcut pipe; the pipeline already existed, the technology already existed. It's not like the pipeline would be any different from the thousands of miles of pipeline already laid down. It was a stupid non-issue for uninformed hippies to attach themselves onto.

I dislike the idea that Bernie is against trade deals. Trade deals are very much a net positive on economies as a whole for both sides. The usual problem with them is that it's not really economists or other people without a vested interest in them who write the deals, it's corporations behind closed doors.

[QUOTE=proboardslol;50023430]It was a shortcut pipe; the pipeline already existed, the technology already existed. It's not like the pipeline would be any different from the thousands of miles of pipeline already laid down. It was a stupid non-issue for uninformed hippies to attach themselves onto.[/QUOTE]are you denying that the 'shortcut pipe' would have huge impact on the minority and tribal communities within 17% of the land being developed? are environmental scientists uninformed hippies? when Dr. John Stansbury mentions the increased amount of spills that will occur with the building of the new pipe, with the existing Keystone I pipeline having 1 spill & 11 minor spills in it's first year of operation, is he being a hippy?

[QUOTE=proboardslol;50023430]It was a shortcut pipe; the pipeline already existed, the technology already existed. It's not like the pipeline would be any different from the thousands of miles of pipeline already laid down. It was a stupid non-issue for uninformed hippies to attach themselves onto.[/QUOTE] i really don't like the idea of putting even more oil pipelines over the largest source of freshwater in north america

[QUOTE=srobins;50023167]I just genuinely [I]cannot[/I] fathom how anyone could be enthusiastic about Clinton. Voting for her because you don't think Sanders is viable.. Sure, okay. But how can [I]anyone[/I] be an actual supporter of her on an emotional or personal level? How can anyone have any level of genuine appreciation or enthusiasm for someone this ridiculous?[/QUOTE] Because she's the default option.