• Sanders Blasts Clinton's Refusal to Debate 'Insulting to Voters'
    53 replies, posted
[QUOTE] Bernie Sanders blasted Hillary Clinton for her refusal to debate him two weeks before the California Democratic primary. "Our campaign and her campaign had reached an agreement on a number of debates including one here in California in May," Sanders said during a rally in Santa Monica, California, Monday evening. "I gotta tell you this. I think it is a little bit insulting to the people of California, our largest state, that she is not prepared to have a discussion with me about how she will help the Californians address the major crises we face." Clinton issued a statement Monday declining an invitation to participate in the Democratic debate with the Vermont senator before the state's June 7 primary, instead looking ahead to the general election, the campaign said. "We have declined Fox News' invitation to participate in a debate in California,” campaign communications director Jennifer Palmieri said in a statement. “As we have said previously, we plan to compete hard in the remaining primary states, particularly California, while turning our attention to the threat a Donald Trump presidency poses. "We believe that Hillary Clinton's time is best spent campaigning and meeting directly with voters across California and preparing for a general election campaign that will ensure the White House remains in Democratic hands," she added. Sanders also tweeted his "disappointment" in the former secretary of state's refusal to participate in the debate. "I am disappointed but not surprised by Secretary Clinton’s unwillingness to debate before the largest and most important primary in the presidential nominating process," Sanders said. "The state of California and the United States face some enormous crises. Democracy, and respect for the voters of California, I would suggest that there should be a vigorous debate in which the voters may determine whose ideas they support. [/QUOTE] [url]http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/bernie-sanders-blasts-hillary-clintons-refusal-debate-insulting/story?id=39326456[/url] Since when does Sensationalist Headlines have a 64 character limit to titles?
I really don't see the purpose of another debate at this point. Everyone knows where they stand on these two candidates and I seriously doubt this will serve as a hail-mary for Sanders's campaign.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50382939]I really don't see the purpose of another debate at this point. Everyone knows where they stand on these two candidates and I seriously doubt this will serve as a hail-mary for Sanders's campaign.[/QUOTE] Even if it doesn't change peoples' minds all that much, its still generally a good idea for the candidates to debate over what issues and policies they stand for locally in that particular state and in the country overall. I know you can say fuck all in the campaign and no one will hold you too it. Call me old-fashioned/optimistic, but atleast I want to have some leverage when pinning whichever candidate wins by holding them accountable to the policies/issues they stand for.
[QUOTE=LoneWolf_Recon;50382997]Even if it doesn't change peoples' minds all that much, its still generally a good idea for the candidates to debate over what issues and policies they stand for locally in that particular state and in the country overall. I know you can say fuck all in the campaign and no one will hold you too it. Call me old-fashioned/optimistic, but atleast I want to have some leverage when pinning whichever candidate wins by holding them accountable to the policies/issues they stand for.[/QUOTE] They've already had a million fucking debates to see that. What's the point when Clinton has won, she has nothing to gain and a bunch to lose.
[QUOTE=LoneWolf_Recon;50382997]Even if it doesn't change peoples' minds all that much, its still generally a good idea for the candidates to debate over what issues and policies they stand for locally in that particular state and in the country overall. I know you can say fuck all in the campaign and no one will hold you too it. Call me old-fashioned/optimistic, but atleast I want to have some leverage when pinning whichever candidate wins by holding them accountable to the policies/issues they stand for.[/QUOTE] What will this debate have that the others didn't?
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;50383004]They've already had a million fucking debates to see that. What's the point when Clinton has won, she has nothing to gain and a bunch to lose.[/QUOTE] All the more reason for him to paint her as insulting Californians in an attempt to paint her as cowardly to debate him. If he gets her to debate, he wins. If she refuses, he wins. It's a minute victory for him. Won't change much unfortunately.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50383029]What will this debate have that the others didn't?[/QUOTE] She agreed to 4 when she was desperate for debates.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50383029]What will this debate have that the others didn't?[/QUOTE] Sanders hitting clinton on her awful poll numbers vs trump. Transcripts still arent released, would be nice to force her to talk about that Clinton is scared because she knows what little support she has is dwindling
[QUOTE=cody8295;50383166]Sanders hitting clinton on her awful poll numbers vs trump. Transcripts still arent released, would be nice to force her to talk about that Clinton is scared because she knows what little support she has is dwindling[/QUOTE] [img]http://t.s-ul.eu/DAyfeZIz.png[/img] what little support she has is dwindling
[QUOTE=cody8295;50383166]Sanders hitting clinton on her awful poll numbers vs trump. Transcripts still arent released, would be nice to force her to talk about that Clinton is scared because she knows what little support she has is dwindling[/QUOTE] Little support, are you deluded? The whole problem is that she has massive support.
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;50383178]Little support, are you deluded? The whole problem is that she has massive support.[/QUOTE] Its Cody. His thing is being deluded.
[QUOTE=rampageturke 2;50383174][img]http://t.s-ul.eu/DAyfeZIz.png[/img] what little support she has is dwindling[/QUOTE] Delegate count has little to do with popularity among her party anf independents and Republicans. She will not win a general and trump will be president if shes the nominee
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;50383247]Its Cody. His thing is being deluded.[/QUOTE] Yes, there's nothing rational about doubting a candidate's appeal when they have the worst favorability ratings in the history of all U.S. presidential candidates Nothing rational at all
[QUOTE=rampageturke 2;50383174][img]http://t.s-ul.eu/DAyfeZIz.png[/img] what little support she has is dwindling[/QUOTE] this isn't about the primary, delegate count doesn't matter here because they don't represent voter interest anyway, she's losing support among actual voters for the real election it's going to be the democratic nominee vs trump sanders would win vs trump, i don't think there can be much doubt about that it's going to be a much closer race with clinton - close enough that she could lose - and it's only going to get closer every time she opens her mouth what scares me is i'm not sure who will be worse
[QUOTE=mcharest;50383449]Yes, there's nothing rational about doubting a candidate's appeal when they have the worst favorability ratings in the history of all U.S. presidential candidates Nothing rational at all[/QUOTE] Its Flashmarsh. His thing is being deluded. On a serious note he used to be so impartial, I felt he was more correct back then. People assume sanders is staying in because he thinks he can be president. He's staying in so he can go to the convention and get his voters views represented at the convention, with the intention of shifting policies. Watch his interviews
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;50383472]Its Flashmarsh. His thing is being deluded. On a serious note he used to be so impartial, I felt he was more correct back then. People assume sanders is staying in because he thinks he can be president. He's staying in so he can go to the convention and get his voters views represented at the convention, with the intention of shifting policies. Watch his interviews[/QUOTE] you used to like me now i am deluded what the fuck am i meant to do now [editline]24th May 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=mcharest;50383449]Yes, there's nothing rational about doubting a candidate's appeal when they have the worst favorability ratings in the history of all U.S. presidential candidates Nothing rational at all[/QUOTE] I don't think you've seen his posts in other threads. He isn't just doubting her appeal. I doubt her appeal (though I still think she will win easily). Cody is a complete lunatic.
Sanders gains voters whenever people actually know about him. Crooked Hillary's campaign wants to make sure Bernie gets totally suppressed in the media. That includes debates.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50383460]this isn't about the primary, delegate count doesn't matter here because they don't represent voter interest anyway, she's losing support among actual voters for the real election it's going to be the democratic nominee vs trump sanders would win vs trump, i don't think there can be much doubt about that it's going to be a much closer race with clinton - close enough that she could lose - and it's only going to get closer every time she opens her mouth what scares me is i'm not sure who will be worse[/QUOTE] Honestly, I think Trump is gonna win regardless of the democratic nominee. There's too much infighting among the democrats. With Sanders, more so; with Clinton, less so.
[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;50383641]Honestly, I think Trump is gonna win regardless of the democratic nominee. There's too much infighting among the democrats. With Sanders, more so; with Clinton, less so.[/QUOTE] Have you been paying attention to the Republican party? If your only source on politics is Facepunch maybe you would think that, but Republicans have it even worse.
I'd love to see an open and real debate with Sanders and Clinton hosted by TYT with Kyle from Secular Talk as a moderator instead of by another mainstream "news" network. I don't think it's ever going to happen though because Hillary doesn't have the balls to face a panel of moderators that won't kiss her ass, especially if she can't even have a debate with the ones that do. Either way, Sanders isn't going anywhere. He hasn't dropped out and he's still in this race, no matter how bad the establishment wants him out. Hillary owes it to the people that she's supposed to be representing to have an honest debate with him so that everyone can know exactly what they're voting for. This primary isn't over until the convention in Philadelphia on the 25th of July.
Who would ever vote for the political hawk that fights to defend the broken status quo, when you can vote for an anti-establishment radical politician/businessman that could change the entire political game?
[QUOTE=BANNED USER;50383692]Who would ever vote for the political hawk that fights to defend the broken status quo, when you can vote for an anti-establishment radical politician/businessman that could change the entire political game?[/QUOTE] Hawks are better than doves, no question. Neoconservatism will rise again.
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;50383675]Have you been paying attention to the Republican party? If your only source on politics is Facepunch maybe you would think that, but Republicans have it even worse.[/QUOTE] Probably. Adding on that is a lot of people I know seriously support Trump, so it could distort my view. Still, it tells me that Trump has more supporters than you'd think, and he shouldn't be underestimated. That said, I still do think Bernie would get less votes than Hillary if he somehow became the nominee.
[QUOTE=BANNED USER;50383692]Who would ever vote for the political hawk that fights to defend the broken status quo, when you can vote for an anti-establishment radical politician/businessman that could change the entire political game?[/QUOTE] The same people who would rather have just a little change while dealing with a corrupt system, rather than electing a fascist clown like Trump into office so he can drive us straight into WW3 and or the Apocalypse...
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50382939]I really don't see the purpose of another debate at this point. Everyone knows where they stand on these two candidates and I seriously doubt this will serve as a hail-mary for Sanders's campaign.[/QUOTE] Really? Lots of people still don't know about him.
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;50383472]Its Flashmarsh. His thing is being deluded. On a serious note he used to be so impartial, I felt he was more correct back then.[/QUOTE] Partisanship can cloud your judgement, and I am no exception. I try to avoid it, but everyone falls victim to it. I think I am better than I used to be on this, since a year ago or so I had some of the 'zeal of the converted' when I strongly shifted my political leanings. This is made worse by the fact that my views are consistently very much in the minority in SH. I'm pretty sure I am the only person on the entire forum who would self-describe as neoconservative. I'm one of the very few hawks on the entire of Facepunch. Very few other people oppose euthanasia. Almost no other people support mass surveillance. Being anti-Corbyn, I am mostly in the minority in those threads, and although it is more balanced than it was in the past, most people are much more critical of Israel than I am. Nobody else questions the true effects of money in politics, and although there are a lot of people who are on the economic right, they are still in the minority, and usually come from a libertarian angle, which I strongly disagree with (and in many ways I disagree with more than the left-wing perspective). Ultimately, SH usually ignores long and thought out posts rather than snappy attacks and remarks to other people. I do sometimes still write long posts which are balanced, but they tend to get ignored as they are too long for people to bother with as far as I can tell. Although it is better than when opposing opinions got you barraged in dumb ratings, when the vast majority of people are ultimately hostile to your opinion and are not interested in engaging, toxicity is still inevitable in SH. Apologies for off-topic.
The thing about Clinton is that the more people see of her and hear her talk, the less they like her. She wasn't bargaining on Sanders putting up this much of a fight, wasn't ready for a long campaign. If it's her Vs. Trump, Trump has a very real chance of winning because he's got her dialled in and figured out, he can point out the many flaws she's never been good at hiding. If it came down to Sanders Vs. Trump, which it won't, Sanders would win in a landslide.
It's going to be really upsetting to watch Trump take the presidency
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50382939]I really don't see the purpose of another debate at this point. Everyone knows where they stand on these two candidates and I seriously doubt this will serve as a hail-mary for Sanders's campaign.[/QUOTE] Because she said she would. Now that she is the presumed nominee, she won't. It's not just about the debate. This is as an extension of her overall trust problem. If I can't hold her accountable to a debate schedule, does that mean she'll go back on other campaign promises? Like TPP? Personally, she just reminds me of Romney. I don't want a Romney running against someone like Trump
[QUOTE=archangel125;50384076]The thing about Clinton is that the more people see of her and hear her talk, the less they like her. She wasn't bargaining on Sanders putting up this much of a fight, wasn't ready for a long campaign. If it's her Vs. Trump, Trump has a very real chance of winning because he's got her dialled in and figured out, he can point out the many flaws she's never been good at hiding. If it came down to Sanders Vs. Trump, which it won't, Sanders would win in a landslide.[/QUOTE] I dunno if I asked this already, but if Hillary got thrown in the stocks and out of the race, would Bernie sweep the win?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.