• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Clinton campaign's excuse for not debating Sanders is ridiculous

TheDemSocialist said:
Read more @: The Clinton campaign's excuse for not debating Sanders is ridiculous

The excuse coming from the Clinton campaign is pathetic. Excuse me, but stating facts that you do have cozy relationships with Wall Street is not some sort of false slander. IF you dont like facts to be stated then maybe you should partake and have such relations with people... This "tone" argument is bull**** from the Clinton camp. [/FONT][/COLOR]
Click to expand...



Welcome to politics 101. Elections are all about ending the day in first place. There is no second place.

There is no good reason for the Clinton camp to allow a chance of a screw up. Were I in the campaign I would be saying the same thing. What shows is what I have been saying all along is one of character. She cannot tell the truth.

In 1986 this province was electing a new premier. Bill Vanderzalm was the clear front runner and had all the momentum. The opposition challenged him to a debate. He said "What for? I would just be giving them publicity they don't deserve".

That would be my response, honesty. And it kills because it underscores who is winning.
 
Fearandloathing said:
Welcome to politics 101. Elections are all about ending the day in first place. There is no second place.

There is no good reason for the Clinton camp to allow a chance of a screw up. Were I in the campaign I would be saying the same thing. What shows is what I have been saying all along is one of character. She cannot tell the truth.

In 1986 this province was electing a new premier. Bill Vanderzalm was the clear front runner and had all the momentum. The opposition challenged him to a debate. He said "What for? I would just be giving them publicity they don't deserve".

That would be my response, honesty. And it kills because it underscores who is winning.
Click to expand...

Yes, I guess its a good strategy on the Clinton front. But if we view it beyond the "political strategy" point, it shows the true essence of her campaign (which you pointed out). Point being, they are running scared.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Yes, I guess its a good strategy on the Clinton front. But if we view it beyond the "political strategy" point, it shows the true essence of her campaign (which you pointed out). Point being, they are running scared.
Click to expand...

I choose to be the optimist and say this is good news for the people that cheer on the idea of a Sanders victory.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Yes, I guess its a good strategy on the Clinton front. But if we view it beyond the "political strategy" point, it shows the true essence of her campaign (which you pointed out). Point being, they are running scared.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily, in fact if they had agreed to the debate I would say they are running scared. As it stands at this moment in time, the election is hers to lose.
There is a lot about Clinton's character which I have addressed over the course of time, and at time scathingly so. In this instance it is what any smart campaign manager would do. Bernie Sanders is desperate to be heard; she steps onto a stage with him she is only giving him a soap box and a chance for her to make a mistake.
 
These debates should be mandatory for presidential candidates to participate in.
 
Abbazorkzog said:
I choose to be the optimist and say this is good news for the people that cheer on the idea of a Sanders victory.
Click to expand...



Were I in the Sanders camp at this juncture I would go negative and in a big way.

"What Tone?" and then hit the real reason "she scared!" I would not do it on a national campaign but she is so far in front it would be worth a "Hail Mary" effort
 
Fearandloathing said:
Not necessarily, in fact if they had agreed to the debate I would say they are running scared.
Click to expand...

This isnt a they situation. This is a "her" situation. What I meant by "they are running scared" is the Clinton camp running scared.

There is a lot about Clinton's character which I have addressed over the course of time, and at time scathingly so. In this instance it is what any smart campaign manager would do. Bernie Sanders is desperate to be heard; she steps onto a stage with him she is only giving him a soap box and a chance for her to make a mistake.
Click to expand...
And I agree this is true.
But that kinda was my whole point. Hillary is scared to go on stage with Bernie because it has opened her up for valid criticism.
 
Fearandloathing said:
Were I in the Sanders camp at this juncture I would go negative and in a big way.

"What Tone?" and then hit the real reason "she scared!" I would not do it on a national campaign but she is so far in front it would be worth a "Hail Mary" effort
Click to expand...
I disagree. Sanders is killing her on the issues and the only thing she has going for her is name recognition and the still baffling support among the A.A. community. She loses to Sanders on every issue and has been forced to essentially adopt his platform.

When she was running ads in Nevada she they hardly ever mentioned her "foreign policy" credentials. Among the Democratic base it's probably because her policies as S.O.S. were disasters. Bernie would easily be able to flip her only positive policy position into a negative. He's like a judo master that way.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Read more @: The Clinton campaign's excuse for not debating Sanders is ridiculous

The excuse coming from the Clinton campaign is pathetic. Excuse me, but stating facts that you do have cozy relationships with Wall Street is not some sort of false slander. IF you dont like facts to be stated then maybe you should partake and have such relations with people... This "tone" argument is bull**** from the Clinton camp. [/FONT][/COLOR]
Click to expand...

Why should she debate him? She has the clear advantage on the electoral map moving forward and a solid win in any of the upcoming big states effectively ends Sanders campaign. A debate could put that at risk if there is something dramatic which occurs, why do that? She's playing it safe. I wager Sanders would do the same thing if the roles were reversed.
 
I'm all for Bernie but Clinton knows she's about to win, so there's no need for her tow kowtow to the debate process anymore.

It's pretty pathetic that someone caught up in so much legal scandal can still potentially attain the Presidency. Just goes to show that there's one set of rules for them and one for us.
 
She has nothing to gain. She has the nomination lock up as far as delegates and super delegates. And the party will not allow Sanders to run. It's as simple as that.

"There is no democracy in the democratic party"... LOL

It's Hillary or nothing, unless she is forced to drop out due to her legal troubles. The only curtains she ill be measuring will be for a 1 x 2 window in a concrete wall.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom