DNC will change rules to exclude Tulsi Gabbard from the debates

[brucejoel99]

Why shouldn't Tulsi be in the debate?

She's on the ballot in the remaining states.  Why shouldn't the Democratic voters get to hear what she says?

Is that inconvenient for the Democratic Establishment?  Probably, but so what?  The Democratic Establishment's problems come from rigging the process and getting caught.  You'd think they'd avoid all appearances of this in 2020, but I guess not.

She's no longer viable. At this point in the cycle, being viable is a reasonable goalpost for a debate.

[brucejoel99]

Why shouldn't Tulsi be in the debate?

She's on the ballot in the remaining states.  Why shouldn't the Democratic voters get to hear what she says?

Is that inconvenient for the Democratic Establishment?  Probably, but so what?  The Democratic Establishment's problems come from rigging the process and getting caught.  You'd think they'd avoid all appearances of this in 2020, but I guess not.

She's no longer viable. At this point in the cycle, being viable is a reasonable goalpost for a debate.

She could conceivably win enough delegates to force a brokered convention.  There are a significant number of Democrats who don't wish for either Biden or Sanders.  Why shouldn't they have another choice that's already on the ballot?  Perhaps a significant number of Democrats WANT a brokered convention which will produce a candidate other than someone who'll be eighty in their first term and who is either mildly senile or a blatant anti-capitalist.  Are they just out of luck?

Gabbard's presence may well be inconvenient for the Democratic Establishment, which will have enough trouble with the Bernie Bros at the convention to maintain unity.  That's fine, but if that's the case, the blather about "democracy" needs to stop.  Tulsi Gabbard is a Representative who's on the ballot in the upcoming primaries.  Why shouldn't she be able to make her case to the Democratic Party electorate in the debate?  Why is that not the "democratic" thing to do?

Oh yeah, her whopping 2 delegates will definitely give her leverage at the convention, for sure... no. Let's be real, Fuzzy. After the events of the past week, there's no chance of a contested convention happening now (& I'm gonna take a wild guess & say that, by the time we reach the convention, Warren, Bloomberg, Buttigieg, & Klobuchar will all still have more delegates than Tulsi lol).

But regardless, that has nothing to do with the issue. Tulsi has already been on the debate stage & has gotten air time to make her case. Her polling average peaked at 2%. Currently, the will of the people is that Tulsi has 1% support (& that 1% of people isn't "out of luck;" if she's still their choice, & she's still on their ballots, then they can still vote for her. Not being in the debates doesn't incapacitate their ability to vote for her if they still wanna), & with the exception of Hawaii, there are no states going forward where Tulsi is projected to even receive 1 delegate. Sp where do you draw the line, Fuzzy? There are people still technically running that have 0.1%, 0.01%, 0.001%, 0.0001% support. Do you wanna have 40 candidates on stage all the way until the convention?

Democrats need to be able to eliminate candidates so serious scrutiny & discussion can happen among the candidates who actually have a chance at the nomination, contested convention or not. You can't have 25-40 people on the stage until June & risk a sh*tstorm. And Tulsi still hanging in there like a dingleberry when you have so many Democrats who were much better off than her gone now proves my point: candidates could just hang around forever & dilute the process if they're enabled to do so.

Oh, but no, Fuzzy, you're right. I'm so sorry that Democrats don't wanna keep enabling her ego, grift, deliberate attempt to undermine Democrats because she's a Russian plant, idiocy, etc. Will you ever forgive us?

[brucejoel99]

Why shouldn't Tulsi be in the debate?

She's on the ballot in the remaining states.  Why shouldn't the Democratic voters get to hear what she says?

Is that inconvenient for the Democratic Establishment?  Probably, but so what?  The Democratic Establishment's problems come from rigging the process and getting caught.  You'd think they'd avoid all appearances of this in 2020, but I guess not.

She's no longer viable. At this point in the cycle, being viable is a reasonable goalpost for a debate.

She could conceivably win enough delegates to force a brokered convention.  There are a significant number of Democrats who don't wish for either Biden or Sanders.  Why shouldn't they have another choice that's already on the ballot?  Perhaps a significant number of Democrats WANT a brokered convention which will produce a candidate other than someone who'll be eighty in their first term and who is either mildly senile or a blatant anti-capitalist.  Are they just out of luck?

Gabbard's presence may well be inconvenient for the Democratic Establishment, which will have enough trouble with the Bernie Bros at the convention to maintain unity.  That's fine, but if that's the case, the blather about "democracy" needs to stop.  Tulsi Gabbard is a Representative who's on the ballot in the upcoming primaries.  Why shouldn't she be able to make her case to the Democratic Party electorate in the debate?  Why is that not the "democratic" thing to do?

Oh yeah, her whopping 2 delegates will definitely give her leverage at the convention, for sure... no. Let's be real, Fuzzy. After the events of the past week, there's no chance of a contested convention happening now (& I'm gonna take a wild guess & say that, by the time we reach the convention, Warren, Bloomberg, Buttigieg, & Klobuchar will all still have more delegates than Tulsi lol).

But regardless, that has nothing to do with the issue. Tulsi has already been on the debate stage & has gotten air time to make her case. Her polling average peaked at 2%. Currently, the will of the people is that Tulsi has 1% support (& that 1% of people isn't "out of luck;" if she's still their choice, & she's still on their ballots, then they can still vote for her. Not being in the debates doesn't incapacitate their ability to vote for her if they still wanna), & with the exception of Hawaii, there are no states going forward where Tulsi is projected to even receive 1 delegate. Sp where do you draw the line, Fuzzy? There are people still technically running that have 0.1%, 0.01%, 0.001%, 0.0001% support. Do you wanna have 40 candidates on stage all the way until the convention?

Democrats need to be able to eliminate candidates so serious scrutiny & discussion can happen among the candidates who actually have a chance at the nomination, contested convention or not. You can't have 25-40 people on the stage until June & risk a sh*tstorm. And Tulsi still hanging in there like a dingleberry when you have so many Democrats who were much better off than her gone now proves my point: candidates could just hang around forever & dilute the process if they're enabled to do so.

Oh, but no, Fuzzy, you're right. I'm so sorry that Democrats don't wanna keep enabling her ego, grift, deliberate attempt to undermine Democrats because she's a Russian plant, idiocy, etc. Will you ever forgive us?

The Russian Plant stuff is stuff and nonsense.  I'll enjoy seeing her successfully sue Hillary Clinton for slander and win.

lol k