DNC will change rules to exclude Tulsi Gabbard from the debates

[Hermit For Peace]

She is a joke.

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

Tulsi, obviously, should not be in the debates, but I quote this:


https://twitter.com/marwilliamson/status/1235928065798074368

[W]

I'd like to preface this by saying Gabbard has been my second choice for most of this cycle. I actually agree with the DNC here. I think it's scummy that they didn't make it official until after Super Tuesday but that the 1 delegate guideline was quite clearly only for the first four. We are no longer in the days of 12 candidate stages where everyone and their mother can qualify. Tulsi Gabbard is simply not a viable candidate, and would be nothing but a distraction in this two way race.

[President Johnson]

Potentially stupid question: Why isn't she already out of money? Who contributes to a campaign with literal zero chance?

[Santander]

Potentially stupid question: Why isn't she already out of money? Who contributes to a campaign with literal zero chance?

Fascists like me.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

I propose that as a compromise, Tulsi be allowed to debate Mr. Trump.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Potentially stupid question: Why isn't she already out of money? Who contributes to a campaign with literal zero chance?

What campaign?

[Mr. Morden]

Potentially stupid question: Why isn't she already out of money? Who contributes to a campaign with literal zero chance?

What campaign?

Well, her campaign does have enough money to send her to campaign in states that have already voted:

https://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/1235642355514060802

Maybe she's just getting an early jump on 2024?

[Orser67]

The title of this thread is misleading since they had never set the rules of the debate to begin with. Please change it.

[Fuzzy Bear]

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.

[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.

[7,052,770]

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.

This will be the seventh debate she hasn't been invited to. Why do you suddenly care now?

[Fuzzy Bear]

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?

[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?

[Fuzzy Bear]

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.

[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

[DrScholl]

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.

It doesn't take a legal scholar to know that she has no case. You can't sue someone for slander when they didn't even mention your name. Her suit against Google already failed, so it's only a matter of time before the one against Clinton fails too.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Potentially stupid question: Why isn't she already out of money? Who contributes to a campaign with literal zero chance?

What campaign?

Well, her campaign does have enough money to send her to campaign in states that have already voted:

https://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/1235642355514060802

Maybe she's just getting an early jump on 2024?

If she shows up in Iowa or NH I guess we can confirm our first 2024 candidate.

[DINGO Joe]

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 is a fifth dimension beyond that which is known to man. It is a dimension as vast as space and as timeless as infinity. It is the middle ground between light and shadow, between science and superstition, and it lies between the pit of man’s fears, and the summit of his knowledge. This is the dimension of imagination. It is an area which we call ... The Fuzzy Zone.