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

[QUOTE=GarbageCan;50023450]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] I can tell you that NAFTA has not helped Mexico's economy much, sure it may have helped the corporations that operate there, but the Mexican people and Mexico have not.

[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] Actually, no it wasn't, and you would do well to remember issues are more complicated than you're boiling them down to being.

Wow, the DNC should have a say in this

He is comparing and contrasting with his opponent. By defending themselves by calling these ads negative, the Clinton people are practically saying that Clinton's decisions and stances are bad.

Fucking lmao there should [B]still[/B] be a debate. And Hillary can still be a no-show if she wants. Imagine a one-person debate haha. It's like the Republican situation. A candidate can reserve the right to refuse but that shouldn't dictate the debate not moving forward. In true Hillary fashion she's refusing an arena to answer questions or at the very least respond to accountability. Should just give it to Bern as a free QnA slot. She knows if she debates with him in NY she'll probably lose. 9/11 buzzwords and Wall St. can't save you there. And if she loses NY + California he will likely win the nominee. [editline]28th March 2016[/editline] Not even the biggest idiot Hillary supporter can read a statement as mind-blowing as: "We won't do any debates unless Bernie allows us to (by making the tone fair)". and not see that as Hillary holding the debates hostage. [editline]28th March 2016[/editline] and don't get me started on how this is going to work if she wins nominee vs. Trump and [I]his[/I] "tone".

[QUOTE=Sableye;50023589]Wow, the DNC should have a say in this[/QUOTE] That isn't the greatest idea. The DNC chair is Wasserman Schultz, who is about as pro-Clinton as you can get without dedicating a shrine to her. The DNC has scheduled less debates than usual, as well as scheduling the few they have during less than prime time hours so that viewership is less. The goal is to keep people away from any facetime that Sanders may have, so that people just default to the classic Democratic nominee rather than some renegade politician, or worse, a Republican.

[QUOTE=Revenge282;50024162]That isn't the greatest idea. The DNC chair is Wasserman Schultz, who is about as pro-Clinton as you can get without dedicating a shrine to her. [/QUOTE] Well, she is not pro-Clinton, she is pro-Corporate/Corruption.

If it ends up Clinton vs Trump, Trump is going to absolutely demolish her in ads and debates. If she can't handle Sanders being more polite than any other potential nominee in recent memory, how the hell is she going to handle Trump, the guy that holds no punches back? She'd be a useless leader if she has the weight of her past combined with the hypocritical frailty of now, especially when in 2008's campaigning, she explicitly stated "it's the toughest job in the world, [b][i]you should be willing to campaign for every vote, you should be willing to debate anytime, anywhere[/i][/b]". Of course, being consistently inconsistent is her specialty.

[QUOTE=OmniConsUme;50024183]Well, she is not pro-Clinton, she is pro-Corporate/Corruption.[/QUOTE] So pro-Clinton

"He said he wasn't going to do negative ads, so he can't, but I never said I wasn't going to, so I can"

[QUOTE=The Duke;50024223]If it ends up Clinton vs Trump, Trump is going to absolutely demolish her in ads and debates. If she can't handle Sanders being more polite than any other potential nominee in recent memory, how the hell is she going to handle Trump, the guy that holds no punches back? She'd be a useless leader if she has the weight of her past combined with the hypocritical frailty of now, especially when in 2008's campaigning, she explicitly stated "it's the toughest job in the world, [b][i]you should be willing to campaign for every vote, you should be willing to debate anytime, anywhere[/i][/b]". Of course, being consistently inconsistent is her specialty.[/QUOTE] [url=https://streamable.com/bkc9]Here's the clip of her saying that [/url]

Clinton really would fit right in with the Republican frontrunners.

Sanders need to release attack ads in New York and Pennsylvania. It's her one weakness, if he doesn't take advantage of it he won't be able to pull enough voters.

[QUOTE=plokoon9619;50024947]Sanders need to release attack ads in New York and Pennsylvania. It's her one weakness, if he doesn't take advantage of it he won't be able to pull enough voters.[/QUOTE] Sanders got where he is without mud-slinging, people like him because he talks about the issues.

[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] I [I]almost[/I] want her to win, just to see it happen. Almost.

Honestly, it's in her best interest to NOT do any more debates. They will only hurt her and help Sanders.

Sanders should pull a Clint Eastwood and debate against an empty chair

[QUOTE=Potus;50028379]Sanders should pull a Clint Eastwood and debate against an empty chair[/QUOTE] He should do that, and instead just take questions live. I feel like that would put Sanders in a more positive light for making the best of Hillary not wanting to debate him.

[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] [QUOTE=The Duke;50024223]If it ends up Clinton vs Trump, Trump is going to absolutely demolish her in ads and debates.[/QUOTE] How do you figure? I think Trump is going to get absolutely shit on once Clinton pivots to the general election, I mean he's already way behind her in the polls to begin with and once Clinton starts going after him properly and running ads just showing the shit he's said about women/Mexicans/everyone, he's going to get annihilated and he won't even have the full GOP behind him to back him up either. I know he's gotten away with a lot of shit in the primaries but let's snap back to reality, oh there goes gravity: Trump has alienated vast, vast swathes of voters. I just don't see how people are so sure that Trump is going to win or is going to wreck Clinton, when he's one of the shittest presidential election candidates in decades and is probably the easiest opponent Clinton could possibly have hoped for.

The easiest opponent for her would be Cruz. Both are incompetent flip-floppers that have said a ton of awful shit in the past, but Cruz is a mundane enough choice and likely will not force his hand hard enough to sway the public once the nominees on both sides have been set should he obtain it. He isn't as agreeable as Kasich, and he doesn't have Trump's moxy in the slightest. Trump, on the other hand, would have absolutely no qualms against using Clinton's past, both the truthful and the exaggerated, against her in a bid to absolutely destroy her career. She is absolutely covered in dirt that Trump can throw money at ad researchers to and make people hate her even more than himself, which would be quite the accomplishment. I am not pro-Trump by any means, but it's not like Clinton doesn't alienate members of her party, either. Both are entirely unfit to run this country, but if Trump plays his cards right, he most certainly can make himself look like the lesser evil to the television-watching general public. Trump would absolutely love to go against a person like Clinton, because unlike Sanders, he'd have an easy time picking her apart in advetisements over things she has done. At that point, it can easily be a lose-lose-lose situation for Clinton. Leave no comment on them? Public assumes it's true. Deny? Public learns it's true when people find about details from other sources, losing trust in her. Confirm? Shoot yourself in the foot.

Hillary's got a better position than Trump, but anybody who thinks Trump wouldn't DESTROY her in debates has got some extremely rose-tinted glasses on. She's trying to run a somewhat clean campaign, Trump doesn't give two shits. You give him an opening, he WILL use it.