DNC moves to change debate rules to exclude Tulsi Gabbard

[westaussie]

How many litres of milk does he want?

[TheDoctorIsIn]

And she will lose.

I wonder who is paying for her attorney’s fees.

[Medicswife2002]

@Jezcoe

@Snow96

If she gets into the debate and shines . . . .

She has been in earlier debates.

Did she shine then?

Kamala Harris probably has an answer you won’t agree with.

One good debate on stage and she fought dirty enough to cut down a larger candidate.

THIS is why she’s a no go. Most primary candidates know to debate without causing too much future harm to their rivals but she can’t be trusted to hold back.

Those in charge must keep her from standing next to Joe and Bernie at all costs so if changing rules at every turn is necessary then that is what they’ll do.

[WuWei]

@Jezcoe

@altair1013

@Jezcoe

She has zero path to the nomination.

That is why.

That is not why. They don’t want her to upset the apple cart and create chaos buy confusing the old fart white dudes. She is young, pretty and smart. Quite a contrast to the Depends duo.

She has delegates from America Somoa.

She has no path to winning the nomination

Sure she does, the DNC could just declare her the nominee.

[WuWei]

@Munimula1

@gooddad409

She called her a Russian asset.

I’ll say it again for the hard of hearing: Hillary never even mentioned her name.

Who was Clinton talking about?

[Jezcoe]

@Medicswife2002

@Jezcoe

@Snow96

If she gets into the debate and shines . . . .

She has been in earlier debates.

Did she shine then?

Kamala Harris probably has an answer you won’t agree with.

One good debate on stage and she fought dirty enough to cut down a larger candidate.

THIS is why she’s a no go. Most primary candidates know to debate without causing too much future harm to their rivals but she can’t be trusted to hold back.

Those in charge must keep her from standing next to Joe and Bernie at all costs so if changing rules at every turn is necessary then that is what they’ll do.

All of this is countered with the fact that Gabbard has zero path to gaining the nomination

I appreciate the concern about the inner workings of the DNC, but there is no reason as of this date to tailor the rules to include someone who has zero chance.

[Snow96]

@Jezcoe

I appreciate the concern about the inner workings of the DNC, but there is no reason as of this date to tailor the rules to include someone who has zero chance.

When they changed the rules for billionair boy, was there a route for him to get the nomination?

[westaussie]

She had her chance and failed to attract sufficient supporters to vote for her.

[westaussie]

Yes there was.

[Medicswife2002]

@Jezcoe

@Medicswife2002

@Jezcoe

@Snow96

If she gets into the debate and shines . . . .

She has been in earlier debates.

Did she shine then?

Kamala Harris probably has an answer you won’t agree with.

One good debate on stage and she fought dirty enough to cut down a larger candidate.

THIS is why she’s a no go. Most primary candidates know to debate without causing too much future harm to their rivals but she can’t be trusted to hold back.

Those in charge must keep her from standing next to Joe and Bernie at all costs so if changing rules at every turn is necessary then that is what they’ll do.

All of this is countered with the fact that Gabbard has zero path to gaining the nomination

I appreciate the concern about the inner workings of the DNC, but there is no reason as of this date to tailor the rules to include someone who has zero chance.

Especially if she has a good debate which was what I responded to you saying. They just cannot and will not take the chance.

[Jezcoe]

@Snow96

@Jezcoe

I appreciate the concern about the inner workings of the DNC, but there is no reason as of this date to tailor the rules to include someone who has zero chance.

When they changed the rules for billionair boy, was there a route for him to get the nomination?

You are correct.

That was a mistake.

So far though, Bloomberg has more delegates than Gabbard.

Bloomberg, like Gabbard has no path to the nomination, thus he dropped out.

[Jezcoe]

@Medicswife2002

@Jezcoe

@Medicswife2002

@Jezcoe

@Snow96

If she gets into the debate and shines . . . .

She has been in earlier debates.

Did she shine then?

Kamala Harris probably has an answer you won’t agree with.

One good debate on stage and she fought dirty enough to cut down a larger candidate.

THIS is why she’s a no go. Most primary candidates know to debate without causing too much future harm to their rivals but she can’t be trusted to hold back.

Those in charge must keep her from standing next to Joe and Bernie at all costs so if changing rules at every turn is necessary then that is what they’ll do.

All of this is countered with the fact that Gabbard has zero path to gaining the nomination

I appreciate the concern about the inner workings of the DNC, but there is no reason as of this date to tailor the rules to include someone who has zero chance.

Especially if she has a good debate which was what I responded to you saying. They just cannot and will not take the chance.

She has been in previous debates.

She didn’t light a fire under her campaign then.

There is zero indication that it would happen now.

I get it though. The concern that is being shown for a person that no one here is going to vote for is precious.

[WuWei]

How is she supposed to get delegates when they changed the rules to keep her out of the debate?

[westaussie]

One is tempted to come to the conclusion that there is an ulterior motive.

[Snow96]

@westaussie

Yes there was.

Really?

Didn’t look like it from the results on Super Tuesday. Seem’s like no one really wanted Billionair boy. They had to change the rules for him to get into the debate PERIOD. He didn’t qualify, but the DNC needed him so they changed the rules.

[Medicswife2002]

@Jezcoe

@Medicswife2002

@Jezcoe

@Medicswife2002

@Jezcoe

@Snow96

If she gets into the debate and shines . . . .

She has been in earlier debates.

Did she shine then?

Kamala Harris probably has an answer you won’t agree with.

One good debate on stage and she fought dirty enough to cut down a larger candidate.

THIS is why she’s a no go. Most primary candidates know to debate without causing too much future harm to their rivals but she can’t be trusted to hold back.

Those in charge must keep her from standing next to Joe and Bernie at all costs so if changing rules at every turn is necessary then that is what they’ll do.

All of this is countered with the fact that Gabbard has zero path to gaining the nomination

I appreciate the concern about the inner workings of the DNC, but there is no reason as of this date to tailor the rules to include someone who has zero chance.

Especially if she has a good debate which was what I responded to you saying. They just cannot and will not take the chance.

She has been in previous debates.

She didn’t light a fire under her campaign then.

There is zero indication that it would happen now.

I get it though. The concern that is being shown for a person that no one here is going to vote for is precious.

Calling it concern is silly. I’m commenting. The DNC can make these rules for whatever reason they like, it’s their sandbox. I along with millions watched Kamala fade under Tulsi’s attacks on stage. The DNC won’t let her get a chance to repeat anything like that with the two that are left.

[Jezcoe]

@Medicswife2002

@Jezcoe

@Medicswife2002

@Jezcoe

@Medicswife2002

@Jezcoe

@Snow96

If she gets into the debate and shines . . . .

She has been in earlier debates.

Did she shine then?

Kamala Harris probably has an answer you won’t agree with.

One good debate on stage and she fought dirty enough to cut down a larger candidate.

THIS is why she’s a no go. Most primary candidates know to debate without causing too much future harm to their rivals but she can’t be trusted to hold back.

Those in charge must keep her from standing next to Joe and Bernie at all costs so if changing rules at every turn is necessary then that is what they’ll do.

All of this is countered with the fact that Gabbard has zero path to gaining the nomination

I appreciate the concern about the inner workings of the DNC, but there is no reason as of this date to tailor the rules to include someone who has zero chance.

Especially if she has a good debate which was what I responded to you saying. They just cannot and will not take the chance.

She has been in previous debates.

She didn’t light a fire under her campaign then.

There is zero indication that it would happen now.

I get it though. The concern that is being shown for a person that no one here is going to vote for is precious.

Calling it concern is silly. I’m commenting. The DNC can make these rules for whatever reason they like, it’s their sandbox. I along with millions watched Kamala fade under Tulsi’s attacks on stage. The DNC won’t let her get a chance to repeat anything like that with the two that are left.

Kamala Harris has a better chance of one day being a President with a D next to her name than Gabbard ever will.

She has no path to the nomination.

[westaussie]

The debates were before Super Tuesday. Before the Super Tuesday there was a chance that he could win sufficient delegates to win the nomination. Post Super Tuesday he was as dead as a dodo in terms of being a viable candidate.

[Medicswife2002]

@Jezcoe

@Medicswife2002

@Jezcoe

@Medicswife2002

@Jezcoe

@Medicswife2002

@Jezcoe

@Snow96

If she gets into the debate and shines . . . .

She has been in earlier debates.

Did she shine then?

Kamala Harris probably has an answer you won’t agree with.

One good debate on stage and she fought dirty enough to cut down a larger candidate.

THIS is why she’s a no go. Most primary candidates know to debate without causing too much future harm to their rivals but she can’t be trusted to hold back.

Those in charge must keep her from standing next to Joe and Bernie at all costs so if changing rules at every turn is necessary then that is what they’ll do.

All of this is countered with the fact that Gabbard has zero path to gaining the nomination

I appreciate the concern about the inner workings of the DNC, but there is no reason as of this date to tailor the rules to include someone who has zero chance.

Especially if she has a good debate which was what I responded to you saying. They just cannot and will not take the chance.

She has been in previous debates.

She didn’t light a fire under her campaign then.

There is zero indication that it would happen now.

I get it though. The concern that is being shown for a person that no one here is going to vote for is precious.

Calling it concern is silly. I’m commenting. The DNC can make these rules for whatever reason they like, it’s their sandbox. I along with millions watched Kamala fade under Tulsi’s attacks on stage. The DNC won’t let her get a chance to repeat anything like that with the two that are left.

Kamala Harris has a better chance of one day being a President with a D next to her name than Gabbard ever will.

She has no path to the nomination.

I’m sure you’re right that Kamala has a better chance especially if nobody repeats what Tulsi did to her in future debates.

I’m commenting specifically on the notion that she was ineffective in debates. Politics is crazy and messy -just look at the different rationales Bloomberg gave for getting in then staying in then leaving (stopping one/helping one/etc). If the DNC had assurances she’d solely attack Bernie, I’m betting they’d let her on stage. Of course I’m just hypothesizing about that.

[westaussie]

She should not be on the stage. There is absolutely no rationale for her presence.