2020 Presidential Race

#24,727
#24,727
0nelilreb said:
Rules are in place during a contest for the purpose of fairness to all participants . The DNC was asked to change these rules , their response was no because the rules are fair for everyone . It’s not a question of THE RULES, everyone knew them going in and that made it fair . The problem is changing them during the contest expressly for the benefit of one person . The others as you so succinctly put it “ will just get over it “ . It’s not a conspiracy when it’s your candidates that are the ones complaining and I’m pointing it out to you .
Click to expand...
Just because everyone knows the rules in no way makes the rules fair. The rule change makes sense and results in a viable candidate being a part of the debate. Keeping the rule would have made no sense and only penalized one candidate who was in a first time ever unique position and kept a viable candidate off the debate stage.
Bottom line, viable candidates should be allowed to participate equally in the debates. That is the end result.
 
#24,728
#24,728
JCP201 said:
I already know I'm not voting for Trump, he has already shown me who he is.

As a voter, I felt the need to fact check, as everyone here should do.
Click to expand...
Hm. I have a feeling you havent extended said "fact checking" courtesies to one of the subjected individuals.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hog88
#24,729
#24,729
luthervol said:
Just because everyone knows the rules in no way makes the rules fair. The rule change makes sense and results in a viable candidate being a part of the debate. Keeping the rule would have made no sense and only penalized one candidate who was in a first time ever unique position and kept a viable candidate off the debate stage.
Bottom line, viable candidates should be allowed to participate equally in the debates. That is the end result.
Click to expand...

I can understand . I mean you and the DNC have 1.1 million reasons ( so far ) to agree with this statement . The other candidates will just have to get over it , or pony solider up to get the rules changed again in their favor . I guess wealth redistribution does work if applied correctly and for the “ right “ reasons .
 
  • Like
Reactions: NurseGoodVol and VolnJC
#24,731
#24,731
0nelilreb said:
I can understand . I mean you and the DNC have 1.1 million reasons ( so far ) to agree with this statement . The other candidates will just have to get over it , or pony solider up to get the rules changed again in their favor . I guess wealth redistribution does work if applied correctly and for the “ right “ reasons .
Click to expand...
As long as we all stay focused on what is right.
All viable candidates should be in the debate.
Rules that unfairly restrict a viable candidate from being in a debate are wrong and should be changed.
Let's not forget the end result. Bloomberg, a viable candidate for president, is allowed to be in a presidential debate.
Oh, the horrors.
 
#24,732
#24,732
luthervol said:
As long as we all stay focused on what is right.
All viable candidates should be in the debate.
Rules that unfairly restrict a viable candidate from being in a debate are wrong and should be changed.
Let's not forget the end result. Bloomberg, a viable candidate for president, is allowed to be in a presidential debate.
Oh, the horrors.
Click to expand...

I haven’t forgotten what the end result is all through our debate . The DNC sold out to Mr. Moneybags . They can’t even convince their own candidates they didn’t . When you can’t even get your own party to believe it , trying to convince the other party of it , won’t work .
 
  • Like
Reactions: NurseGoodVol
#24,735
#24,735
0nelilreb said:
I haven’t forgotten what the end result is all through our debate . The DNC sold out to Mr. Moneybags . They can’t even convince their own candidates they didn’t . When you can’t even get your own party to believe it , trying to convince the other party of it , won’t work .
Click to expand...
That's a good conspiracy and all.
End result of changing the rule: viable candidate allowed in the debate.
End result of NOT changing the rule: viable candidate unfairly kept out of the debate.
The correct thing happened. The other dem candidates will get over the loss of their unfair advantage provided by an archaic rule.
Everything else is just noise.
 
#24,737
#24,737
luthervol said:
That's a good conspiracy and all.
End result of changing the rule: viable candidate allowed in the debate.
End result of NOT changing the rule: viable candidate unfairly kept out of the debate.
The correct thing happened. The other dem candidates will get over the loss of their unfair advantage provided by an archaic rule.
Everything else is just noise.
Click to expand...


That’s a whole lot of explaining just to say , we sold out just to benefit the billionaire...Occam's Razor
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tennesseefan2019
#24,738
#24,738
0nelilreb said:
That’s a whole lot of explaining just to say , we sold out just to benefit the billionaire...Occam's Razor
Click to expand...
Selling out to do the right thing.....pretty smooth.
End result of changing the rule: viable candidate allowed in the debate.
End result of NOT changing the rule: viable candidate unfairly kept out of the debate.
The correct thing happened.
 
#24,739
#24,739
luthervol said:
Selling out to do the right thing.....pretty smooth.
End result of changing the rule: viable candidate allowed in the debate.
End result of NOT changing the rule: viable candidate unfairly kept out of the debate.
The correct thing happened.
Click to expand...

..Of course the correct thing for the DNC happened . They got their money , you got another new billionaire candidate . I thought we already established this . You can’t tap dance around the truth . Well we all know you can , but you look silly trying to do it .
 
  • Like
Reactions: NurseGoodVol
#24,741
#24,741
0nelilreb said:
..Of course the correct thing for the DNC happened . They got their money , you got another new billionaire candidate . I thought we already established this . You can’t tap dance around the truth . Well we all know you can , but you look silly trying to do it .
Click to expand...
Who is tap dancing around the truth?
The truth is this:
An archaic rule that unfairly punished one viable candidate was changed to where now all viable candidates can be in the debate.
 
#24,742
#24,742
luthervol said:
Who is tap dancing around the truth?
The truth is this:
An archaic rule that unfairly punished one viable candidate was changed to where now all viable candidates can be in the debate.
Click to expand...

I’ve already agreed with you on that . For the low low price of $300k + $800k the same day . Sounds like a deal to me , if I was a billionaire wanting the rules changed to benefit me . 😊
 
#24,743
#24,743
0nelilreb said:
I’ve already agreed with you on that . For the low low price of $300k + $800k the same day . Sounds like a deal to me , if I was a billionaire wanting the rules changed to benefit me . 😊
Click to expand...
Now there's the conspiracy poking out its ugly head.
So let me see if I have it correct, Bloomberg bribed the DNC with 1.1 million in donations so they would change an archaic rule that unfairly kept him out of debates to a better rule that allowed all viable candidates to enter the debates?
 
#24,744
#24,744
luthervol said:
Now there's the conspiracy poking out its ugly head.
So let me see if I have it correct, Bloomberg bribed the DNC with 1.1 million in donations so they would change an archaic rule that unfairly kept him out of debates to a better rule that allowed all viable candidates to enter the debates?
Click to expand...

.. again it’s not conspiracy when he’s the only one to do it , and the only one to be of it from it . Occam's Razor . You keep dancing but can’t seem to get around the facts . We are just rehashing all the proven facts that are there . You can call a pineapple and apple if that’s your wish , it won’t change facts though .
 
#24,746
#24,746
0nelilreb said:
.. again it’s not conspiracy when he’s the only one to do it , and the only one to be of it from it . Occam's Razor . You keep dancing but can’t seem to get around the facts . We are just rehashing all the proven facts that are there . You can call a pineapple and apple if that’s your wish , it won’t change facts though .
Click to expand...
LOL....Occam's Razor would support my side. The simple truth, it was a bad rule that needed to be changed.
 
#24,750
#24,750
It seems as if Bloomberg has a long history of making donations to political parties.

New York Post no less.
https://nypost.com/2020/01/29/bloomberg-gave-800k-to-democratic-party-during-campaign-launch/
During his tenure as mayor when he ran with Republican Party backing, he donated millions of dollars to GOP campaign committees.

But in recent years, Bloomberg has opened his wallet for Democrats. He donated more than $100 million to help Democrats in the 2018 mid-term elections.

1.1 million seems like chump change. Why didn't they re-write the rules for the 100 million?
Occam's razor. Simple answer - they finally realized the need to change an unfair and outdated rule.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top