Bernie Sanders Calls For Early Presidential Debates With Democrats, Republicans

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
:mrgreen:bongsmilie

why yes, yes he has..let's just just cut to the chase..shall we?:fire:

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) on Sunday called for early presidential debates between both Democrats and Republicans to discuss critical issues ahead of the 2016 primary season.

In an interview on NBC’s “Meet the Press," the newly declared presidential contender said the additional debates would provide contrast to where both parties stand on jobs, income inequality, health care and Social Security.

"I hope very much that we can begin with the Democratic candidate debates as early as July and have some Republicans in those debates as well,” Sanders said.

A spokesman for the senator's campaign added in a statement that including Republicans "could revive interest among ordinary voters in the democratic process."

Democrats announced earlier this year that they would hold six official primary debates beginning this fall. Sanders' bid to hold additional debates could run against the Democratic National Committee and its exclusivity rule. Any candidate who decides to participate in the Democratic Party debates must agree to do so exclusively, making them ineligible to participate in any debates organized by third-party groups.

Republicans are scheduled to hold their first primary debate, hosted by Fox News, in August. The cable news network will limit the number of participants to candidates finishing in the top 10 of an average of national polls, which will prove problematic for campaigns that fail to make the cut.
 
Last edited:

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
i've never seen hillary debate, but she's not bill or barack..those guys are much smoother in front of the camera and so is bernie..

i don't think she is comfortable in front of the camera and i hesitate to think she can overpower a quick witted bernie..i mean look at warren..another example of quick wit.
 

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
If you keep going like this, you may get Bernie elected all by yourself. Then he'll owe you big time.

How does an ambassadorship in Yemen sound to you as a reward? :)
i prefer a more fair and equitable america and that is thanks enough for me, seriously.

people are blogging about him now..i've been watching the conversation in america turn these past few weeks..it's all positive (non-media induced).

people like this guy..and we've had enough..wait until the sheeple catch on..it's gonna be bernie by a landslide!
 

TBoneJack

Well-Known Member
i've never seen hillary debate, but she's not bill or barack..those guys are much smoother in front of the camera and so is bernie..

i don't think she is comfortable in front of the camera and i hesitate to think she can overpower a quick witted bernie..i mean look at warren..another example of quick wit.
Hillary is not a good campaigner either. I've heard liberal political commentators directly say so.

If Hillary wins the Demo nomination, she'll win the presidency in a landslide because women will "get together" and pretty much unilaterally vote for the "first woman president ever" as a novelty, if nothing else. Kinda like back in 2008.

And if given the choice between Hillary and Warren as the first woman pres, I'd choose Warren. She's better qualified because she's an outsider, and Hillary is definitely an insider.
 

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
Hillary is not a good campaigner either. I've heard liberal political commentators directly say so.

If Hillary wins the Demo nomination, she'll win the presidency in a landslide because women will "get together" and pretty much unilaterally vote for the "first woman president ever" as a novelty, if nothing else. Kinda like back in 2008.

And if given the choice between Hillary and Warren as the first woman pres, I'd choose Warren. She's better qualified because she's an outsider, and Hillary is definitely an insider.
i'm a women and i loved the notion of hillary back in 2008..but then came barack who i voted for in the primary.

it's more important to vote based upon best fit for the people..i changed my mind back then and i changed it again now..she's still an insider and i don't like that.

we need outsiders like hildebrand, booker, warren..they're banding together too and have a little coalition going..how refreshing.

not stalker congressman like rand paul who just shows in your committee pics..:lol:



whoa! wait a sec!..is that rendy standing up for mmj committee bill?..i thought he didn't want to legalize?..nope! he doesn't!..you see, rendy's little game is to confuse the constituents..he poses and then turns around and says 'no' to legalize..this guy is a piece shit of the highest order..he's playing the shell game in order to confuse the already, very confused GOP.



Rand Paul’s position on drugs like marijuana is “not to legalize them.” He stresses that smoking marijuana is “a bad thing to do.” Paul’s view is that instead of legalization, penalties for drug use and possession should be reduced.

Reason, a libertarian magazine, is not impressed: “He wants to keep everything illegal, but institute gentler penalties. That’s not remotely libertarian.”

Paul did recently support a bill that would assure states that legalize medical marijuana that patients would not be federally prosecuted.
 
Last edited:

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
GOP is not gonna do it.

they decided after 2012 that a big part of what killed them was too many debates.

the more america knew about their views, the worse it was.
c'mon we get to relive moments like..rick 'oops' perry..herman 'the train' cain..and more..!!!
 

NewtoMJ

Well-Known Member
GOP is not gonna do it.

they decided after 2012 that a big part of what killed them was too many debates.

the more america knew about their views, the worse it was.
As if candidates on either side talk about their REAL views and agendas and not just talking points put together by focus groups.
 
Top