Why is CNN still moderating the Democratic debates?

There was a light hearted statement directed to me that I would have knowledge of kangaroo courts because we have kangaroos in my country. There was no claim of ownership of the term “kangaroo court”.

Everything posted here is light.

This is supposed to be fun and only mildly educational IMO.

:kangaroo:

Given some of the abuse (not from you) I personally have received on occasions on this site I would not agree with your contention that everything posted here is light.

CNN is moderating the debates because they are for entertainment purposes only. If we had actual debates in this country they would only be on public television and there wouldn’t be a subscription required to watch.

Yes, I think CNN and the party leaders want to get remove Sanders from the race, but the naked bias may backfire:

1 Like

No matter what party status one holds the truth is easily recognizable, he was screwed out of the nomination last time around and they are setting him up to do it again this year.

If Bernie becomes the front runner, I would not be surprised if CNN starts running stories about the Sanders campaign being a Russian-supported operation with the implication that is he is just a Russian pawn. Similar questions were raised during the Mueller investigation:

An earlier thread discussed similar claims from Hillary Clinton about Tulsi Gabbard and Jill Stein:

1 Like

Oh no, :“Russia Gate Part Deux”!

Finally something Republicans and Democrats might agree on!

Back in 2017 a Hillary Campaign advisor, Adam Parkhomenko, raised similar questions about alleged Russian collusion with the Sanders campaign:

So she basically did nothing but call Sanders a liar. I could care less. Democrats wanted a moderator (CNN) that was part of their movement and politically biased. That’s what the got.

It’s always the Russians, they are behind everything and I do mean, “everything”.

thats great. except we’re not australia

I keep wondering just why we should care at all how Australia’s gov’t structure has any relevance to ours?

We don’t want it here or we’d have something similar.

If not for us they’d be a colony of the Japanese empire living under an imperial governate.

Don’t let me stop you from continuing to ruminate on same. And I have some other ideas with respect to election reform if you are interested.

To paraphrase one of my favorite actors, “Franky, you can’t possibly imagine just how little I really care”.

There’s nothing you have that we want.

paper ballots?

how about id requirement?

how about capt ahab nancy’s idea to reduce voting age to sweet 16?

Just ask me to tell you and I will tell you.

i did. i asked you three things

must not want to answer for some reason

I didn’t realise there was an urgent need to answer.

Yes to paper ballots.
No to voter id.

Not sure who you mean by “capt Ahab Nancy’s idea”. I haven’t thought a lot about 16 and 17 year olds voting. Certainly in Australia 16 and 17 year olds can enrol. They will appear on the electoral roll and be able to vote at a state or federal election once they turn 18. In principle I would say that I don’t see anything that would rule the possibility that 16 and 17 year old be allowed to vote at local, state or federal level.

I would recommend that there is a body similar to our federal and state electoral commission. This body would be responsible for drawing up boundaries, running and counting of the elections etc.

there is no particular urgency beyond any that applies in any post here with a question.

why no id?