RNC threatens to bar candidates from participating in official presidential debates

  
Via:  sandy-2021492  •  4 months ago  •  90 comments

By:   Allan Smith and Ali Vitali (NBC News)

RNC threatens to bar candidates from participating in official presidential debates
The Republican National Committee is considering prohibiting GOP presidential candidates from participating in debates put on by the Commission on Presidential Debates.

Sponsored by group The Reality Show

The Reality Show


S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



Jan. 13, 2022, 5:16 PM UTC By Allan Smith and Ali Vitali

The Republican National Committee is considering changing its bylaws to prohibit GOP presidential candidates from participating in debates put on by the Commission on Presidential Debates.

"So long as the CPD appears intent on stonewalling the meaningful reforms necessary to restore its credibility with the Republican Party as a fair and nonpartisan actor, the RNC will take every step to ensure that future Republican presidential nominees are given that opportunity elsewhere," RNC Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel wrote in a letter Thursday to Frank Fahrenkopf and Kenneth Wollack, the co-chairs of the debate commission.

McDaniel said the party would initiate the rules change at its winter meeting, which is scheduled for February in Salt Lake City.

The letter was first reported by The New York Times.

The nonprofit commission, which is run by members of both parties and considers itself nonpartisan, was a target of former President Donald Trump's ire during the 2020 election. Trump withdrew from a debate the commission hosted in October 2020 after organizers made it virtual following his Covid diagnosis.

The RNC said it wants the commission to commit to hold a debate before the start of early voting and agree not to hold any matchups after the state deadlines to mail absentee ballots to military personnel and overseas voters. The RNC is also seeking term limits for the commission's board members and a ban on partisan political activity by officials and staffers of the commission.

The party also requested that the commission make its moderator selection process transparent, as well as adopt a code of conduct for debate moderators.

"These proposals are common sense solutions for an organization whose unique, nonpartisan role in American elections requires it to stand above the political fray," the RNC said.

Trump repeatedly lashed out at the debate commission in the fall of 2020. In late 2019, he tweeted that the commission was "stacked with Trump Haters & Never Trumpers," and he suggested that he would skip the debates altogether. In September 2020, after the first presidential debate in Cleveland, Trump took aim at moderator Chris Wallace, tweeting that the event amounted to a "two on one."

In response, the commission said in a statement: "The CPD deals directly with candidates for president and vice president who qualify for participation in the CPD's general election debates.

"The CPD's plans for 2024 will be based on fairness, neutrality and a firm commitment to help the American public learn about the candidates and the issues," the statement continued.

The two entities began talks about reform last spring, led by Fahrenkopf and RNC member David Bossie, a former top Trump campaign official, the letter said. The RNC said the commission has not taken steps to address its concerns for months.

Democratic National Committee Chairman Jaime Harrison described the RNC's announcement as a "tantrum," adding that "voters can count on hearing from President Biden and Vice President Harris, who are proud of their records."

"Republicans can't win a fair fight and they know it," Harrison said in a statement. "After years of having their toxic policies exposed on the national stage, the RNC has decided they would rather hide their ideas and candidates from voters. And during the last presidential election, the Republicans decided to not have a platform for the first time ever so it's a natural progression, first no platform and now no debates."

Allan Smith

Allan Smith is a political reporter for NBC News.

Ali Vitali

Ali Vitali is a political reporter for NBC News, based in Washington.

Ben Kamisar contributed.


Tags

jrGroupDiscuss - desc
[]
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
1  seeder  sandy-2021492    4 months ago
Democratic National Committee Chairman Jaime Harrison described the RNC's announcement as a "tantrum," adding that "voters can count on hearing from President Biden and Vice President Harris, who are proud of their records."
 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.1  devangelical  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1    4 months ago

I'm guessing that the questions must be too hard.

 
 
 
TOM PA
Freshman Silent
1.1.1  TOM PA  replied to  devangelical @1.1    4 months ago

Not too hard, just that the answers/rebuttals would be nothing but word salad.  

 
 
 
squiggy
Sophomore Quiet
1.1.2  squiggy  replied to  TOM PA @1.1.1    4 months ago

Word salad? Where have I heard the most recent garbage grinding?

“It is time for us to do what we have been doing and that time is everyday,” Harris responded.  “Everyday it is time for us to agree that there are things and tools that are available to us to slow this thing down..."

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.2  Vic Eldred  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1    4 months ago

Let's face it, the commission was created for good reasons at one time, but times have changed and there have been major flaws in the way these things were conducted. 

First, We now have very early voting in certain places. Shouldn't at least one debate take place before anyone votes?

Second, the moderators haven't really been moderators, have they? We can all remember the most obvious example of Candy Crowley taking sides with Barack Obama against Mitt Romney in a 2012 debate with her very dishonest & improper "fact check." And then there was the strange choice of Gwen Ifill as moderator. At the time she had a book coming out titled “Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama.”


My suggestion for a new format would be the DNC and RNC each send an individual to ask the questions. The time keeper should be independent.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
1.2.1  Ender  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2    4 months ago

If a debate should take place early, then why is the rnc stating no debate until after all mail in votes are out...

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.2.2  Vic Eldred  replied to  Ender @1.2.1    4 months ago

I'm just giving you my opinion. I think it makes sense that the people should at least hear the candidates respond to real questions, side by side, before voting.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
1.2.3  Ender  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.2    4 months ago

Your opinion is fine. For once I actually agree with you.

Just pointing out you are going against what the rnc is wanting.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
1.2.4  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.2    4 months ago

I think it makes sense that the people should at least hear the candidates respond to real questions, side by side, before voting.

I haven't read any testimonials from voters that claim that they wish they had waited until after the first debate to vote. There are 10 states that had early voting before the end of September and ALL of them allow early voting into at least late October. So, it's pretty obvious that VOTERS are the ones choosing to vote before hearing a debate. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
1.2.5  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2    4 months ago
Second, the moderators haven't really been moderators, have they?

Yes. 

We can all remember the most obvious example of Candy Crowley taking sides with Barack Obama against Mitt Romney in a 2012 debate with her very dishonest & improper "fact check."

The only 'side' that Crowley took was the side of the FACTS. 

And then there was the strange choice of Gwen Ifill as moderator. At the time she had a book coming out titled “Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama.”

Which was well known by BOTH candidates and McCain stated that he had no doubt that Ifll would do a good job as moderator. She did an excellent job. 

My suggestion for a new format would be the DNC and RNC each send an individual to ask the questions. The time keeper should be independent.

The RNC doesn't agree. 

 
 
 
SteevieGee
Senior Silent
1.3  SteevieGee  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1    4 months ago

Republicans haven't run on the issues for many years now.

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Principal
1.3.1  Split Personality  replied to  SteevieGee @1.3    4 months ago

I really can't see the need for debates anymore when candidates have almost unlimited access to a limitless

variety

of venues.

45 made a mockery of the debates with H Clinton calling her a "nasty woman" and calling for her arrest.

The bar is now on the floor.

Debates are now a waste of time IMHO

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.3.2  devangelical  replied to  Split Personality @1.3.1    4 months ago
Debates are now a waste of time IMHO

debates in the last 2 presidential elections clearly illustrated the need for rules to penalize participants that can't follow the rules.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
1.3.3  Dulay  replied to  devangelical @1.3.2    4 months ago

Here's an idea.

Penalize candidates by accumulating the time they wasted by violating the rules and give their opponent that time, at the end of the debate, to pontificate on anything they want. Make the 'Bad' candidate leave the stage beforehand since they've already proven that they can't control themselves. 

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
1.3.4  seeder  sandy-2021492  replied to  Dulay @1.3.3    4 months ago

Ooh, I like that.  Even better than having the moderator cut their mikes.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.3.5  devangelical  replied to  Dulay @1.3.3    4 months ago

sound proof booths to stand in or microphones that can be turned off might help too.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.3.6  devangelical  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.3.4    4 months ago

I was surprised the 2020 debates didn't learn anything from the 2016 debates.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.3.7  CB   replied to  devangelical @1.3.6    4 months ago

Nothing can work with "jabberlips" Donald. His only reason for living appears to be to turn everything upside down and pissing on it. That imbecilic fool of a man is behind the RNC decision to not debate I guarantee it. Remember in 2019 RNC primaries when 'key' states would not sanction primaries? All so "caution tape" Donald could have it all to himself? That is what this looks like. RNC: Trump 2.0.

(From the article.) Trump repeatedly lashed out at the debate commission in the fall of 2020. In late 2019, he tweeted that the commission was "stacked with Trump Haters & Never Trumpers," and he suggested that he would skip the debates altogether

Told you before, this stupid spiteful man Donald J. Trump has a mental log of every slight, real or imagined. The RNC is a joke! Stupid appeasers!

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
2  Ender    4 months ago

Wow. A lot to unwrap....

A code of conduct for the moderator?....

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
3  Ender    4 months ago

I didn't quite get the not having a debate until all mail in ballots were out.

What difference would that make...

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
3.1  devangelical  replied to  Ender @3    4 months ago

narrowing the window of time that the debates can take place.

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
3.2  bbl-1  replied to  Ender @3    4 months ago

Would not make any difference and makes absolutely no sense.  Simply more GOPER exertions like looking for straw in the soybean field.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Junior Principal
4  Gsquared    4 months ago
 And during the last presidential election, the Republicans decided to not have a platform for the first time ever so it's a natural progression, first no platform and now no debates.

If the Republicans have their way, there would be no elections, either.   Just declare their candidate the winner and move on.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
4.1  Ender  replied to  Gsquared @4    4 months ago

The electors get to decide, not the people...

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.2  Texan1211  replied to  Gsquared @4    4 months ago
If the Republicans have their way, there would be no elections, either.   Just declare their candidate the winner and move on.

Where in the FUCK do ya'll GET this crap at?

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
4.2.1  seeder  sandy-2021492  replied to  Texan1211 @4.2    4 months ago

From the attempt Republicans made at nullifying the last general election.  The attempt some of them are still making, with not enough in their numbers opposing their lies.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.2.2  Texan1211  replied to  sandy-2021492 @4.2.1    4 months ago

bullshit, Republicans want [elections]

[deleted]

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
4.2.3  seeder  sandy-2021492  replied to  Texan1211 @4.2.2    4 months ago

We had one.  They didn't want to honor the results.  Not all Republicans, but enough have either gone along with the Big Lie or actively promoted it that you really don't have room to call bullshit, based on GOP behavior.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Senior Guide
4.2.4  Snuffy  replied to  sandy-2021492 @4.2.3    4 months ago

Is this a pot meet kettle moment?  Were  you one of the many on this board who spend four years stating 'Not my President'?  How many Democrats stood up in Congress in Jan 2017 to reject the confirmation of electoral votes?  The partisan nonsense is strong on this board and in the general public...

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.2.5  Texan1211  replied to  sandy-2021492 @4.2.3    4 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
4.2.6  devangelical  replied to  sandy-2021492 @4.2.3    4 months ago

republicans that think trump had the election stolen from him and those that want him to run again in '24 are within a few points of each other in the upper mid 60's percentile. pathetic losers.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
4.2.7  seeder  sandy-2021492  replied to  Snuffy @4.2.4    4 months ago

I despise Trump, but I never denied that he won the election.  That doesn't come close to comparing to those helping to spread the Big Lie now, unless you're really stretching to equate the two, which is partisan in itself.

How much party support did those Dems have, Snuffy?  They couldn't get support from Senate Dems.  How long did members of their party keep filing worthless cases in court, or even say that the results were wrong?  Any blatantly partisan audits by companies like Cyberninjas, who have now shut their doors?  Any calls to secretaries of state, demanding that they "find" more votes.  Any amicus briefs filed by state attorneys general to object to other states' elections?

Any riots?  Gallows on the Capitol Grounds?  Zip-tie-carrying "tourists" taking shits in the Capitol while calling for legislator's heads?

No.

Your attempt to equate the two is partisan nonsense.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
4.2.8  CB   replied to  Snuffy @4.2.4    4 months ago

Let me state it without 'chaser': Donald J. Trump is the former president from "Hell." Liberals don't want or like a 'pappy-figure' who is a control freak. At-known, a classic control freak who is a klutz leaving messes and disorganization for the likes of KellyAnn and Kayleigh and Paul to iron out with particles and sprinkles from the alternative reality world of Donald's head cavity!

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
4.2.9  CB   replied to  sandy-2021492 @4.2.7    4 months ago

Now, I mean-Hey!

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
4.2.10  bbl-1  replied to  Texan1211 @4.2    4 months ago

From the 'Man That Dwells In Mar-a-Lago' and his cadre of---'Viday' operators.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.2.11  JohnRussell  replied to  sandy-2021492 @4.2.7    4 months ago

But but but...... Snuffy says he is an independent. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.2.12  Texan1211  replied to  sandy-2021492 @4.2.3    4 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
4.2.13  seeder  sandy-2021492  replied to  Texan1211 @4.2.12    4 months ago

I've been discussing.  You do what you like.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Senior Guide
4.2.14  Snuffy  replied to  JohnRussell @4.2.11    4 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
4.2.15  Ender  replied to  Snuffy @4.2.14    4 months ago

No offence but I always looked at libertarians as more anarchist. Sort of a no rules crowd...

 
 
 
Snuffy
Senior Guide
4.2.16  Snuffy  replied to  Ender @4.2.15    4 months ago

They can be looked at in that light as the more extremist beliefs can oppose taxation as 'theft', and those who seek to abolish capitalism and private ownership in favor of common ownership and management. Those who take the extreme approach tend to view private property as a barrier to freedom and liberty.

I'm not quite so extreme in that regard. I believe it's better to give people more free choice and that government should have less control over people.  

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
4.2.17  Ender  replied to  Snuffy @4.2.16    4 months ago

Don't fence me in bro...Haha

I think we lost control with the patriot act. That movie Eagle Eye was kind of an eye opener as to how much we are actually surveilled.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
4.2.18  XXJefferson51  replied to  Texan1211 @4.2.5    4 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
4.2.19  XXJefferson51  replied to  Snuffy @4.2.14    4 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.2.20  Texan1211  replied to  sandy-2021492 @4.2.13    4 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.2.21  Texan1211  replied to  Texan1211 @4.2.2    4 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
4.2.22  Dulay  replied to  Snuffy @4.2.4    4 months ago
How many Democrats stood up in Congress in Jan 2017 to reject the confirmation of electoral votes? 

7.

How many Republicans stood up in Congress in Jan 2021 to reject the confirmation of electoral votes?

 
 
 
SteevieGee
Senior Silent
4.2.23  SteevieGee  replied to  Texan1211 @4.2.2    4 months ago
bullshit, Republicans want [elections] [deleted]

Exactly Texan.  Republicans want elections deleted.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.2.24  Texan1211  replied to  SteevieGee @4.2.23    4 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
SteevieGee
Senior Silent
4.2.25  SteevieGee  replied to  Texan1211 @4.2.24    4 months ago

LOL

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.2.26  Texan1211  replied to  SteevieGee @4.2.25    4 months ago

deleted

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.2.27  Texan1211  replied to  Texan1211 @4.2.26    4 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
4.2.28  Sean Treacy  replied to  Texan1211 @4.2.27    4 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.2.29  Texan1211  replied to  SteevieGee @4.2.23    4 months ago
Republicans want elections deleted.

False, but maybe you should take the issue up with the person claiming it?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.2.30  Texan1211  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.2.28    4 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
4.2.31  bugsy  replied to  Texan1211 @4.2.30    4 months ago

removed for context

 
 
 
SteevieGee
Senior Silent
4.2.32  SteevieGee  replied to  Texan1211 @4.2.29    4 months ago

I can only imagine how all caps and red type you would get if I didn't agree with you.  LOL.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
4.3  Dulay  replied to  Gsquared @4    4 months ago

This sounds much like what Putin is trying to do with NATO. They want to set the rules and the standards for the CPD, 'or else'. It's a unique powerplay for garnering unearned influence.

I'd be curious to hear where the hell they think that 'future Republican presidential nominees will be given that opportunity'? Do they intend to create their own version or the Commission? Will they have the funding after paying Trump's legal fees? Wiil they bother to write a platform for 2024 or just stick with the same old bullshit they had in 2016?  That's a lot to accomplish for a Party that's limited by having its lips locked on the ass of a sociopathic narcissist. 

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
4.3.1  Ender  replied to  Dulay @4.3    4 months ago

I am starting to think they don't want debates at all. Just rallies and staged press conferences....

 
 
 
Snuffy
Senior Guide
4.3.2  Snuffy  replied to  Ender @4.3.1    4 months ago

it just seems to me that going back to the Bill Clinton / Bob Dole debates, the moderators have been progressively working to make the debates more about themselves than the candidates.  And the candidates themselves..   they don't answer questions anymore.  They waste some of their question time with bullshit lines about how interesting that question is and then proceed to give some vague promise or canned line from their platform.  And we all know what their platforms are, sound bytes that will be ignored once the election is over.  We don't hear tough questions and have moderators who will pull hard answers out of the candidates so that we can see what the person is made of, it's all made for TV moments and basically meaningless in the greater view of how they would run the country.

TBH the debates between Trump and Clinton did give us, ironically, a good view on how the winner of the election would govern. Trump was loud and combative during the debates and that did carry over to his presidency...   hehe

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
4.3.3  Ender  replied to  Snuffy @4.3.2    4 months ago

Yeah, I have tried to watch a couple of them and they are hard to stomach.

None of them seem to be able to answer a direct question.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
4.3.4  CB   replied to  Ender @4.3.3    4 months ago

It is the 'tear down' of the debate process. Most of these people are 'rushed' in the sense that candidates have a variety of things their BIG egos demand to get across, and the moderators have needful questions pulled from a 'pool,' while SPINMEISTERS have a job to "poo-poo" the whole damn format if "damage control central"—on either side makes the call to do so.

As for Donald J. Trump, that old fart, won't be well-rehearsed in four years about nothing but will DECRY processes and norms. Also Trump, should he run in 2024 does not want to discuss vaccines, January 6, impeachments, or any NEGATIVE SILLY THING HE IS PLANNING TO DO FROM NOW FORWARD in a debate. Just nominate is 'milk-toast' butt. Just press a crown on his head, place a scepter in his right hand, drape his robe on him and send it forth to lead.

(Rolls eyes and spits.)

 
 
 
Steve Ott
Professor Quiet
6  Steve Ott    4 months ago

If nothing else, it will cut the lying down by half.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
7  CB     4 months ago

So it's take your ball and go home, eh? Are we outraged yet? These seekers of appeasement, who blame and mock other people as appeasers are gaslighting society again. Apparently, our shared nation is supposed to honor conservatives because well, you know, can you say:

PRIVILEGE?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.1  Texan1211  replied to  CB @7    4 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
7.1.1  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @7.1    4 months ago

A very short true story for you. I was out for a walk today and as is routine, I crossed my local creek (the one with the 'refillable' trash nowadays) and just as I stepped across the bridge's threshold I heard a voice outside of my Scribd audio set earplugs say, "Hello." I turned to look and there literally sitting in the fenced (No trespassing) area between 'pillar and post' is a somewhat interesting white man looking up at me. I quickly said, "Hey. Hello." And I hurried on across to finish my walk. —END.

What is so special about this story? Well. . . .

It reminded me of somebody I'll call - [deleted.] And as I turned to walk away from the man, I thought about how the term "troll"  might have come to mean 'somebody' stuck by circumstances in a crack in time and space who waits for a passerby to harass, sully, or seek help and attention. 

Poor man. I feel sad for him. I really do.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.1.2  Texan1211  replied to  CB @7.1.1    4 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
7.1.3  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @7.1.2    4 months ago

I know. It's for real, though. He was a nice person.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.1.4  Texan1211  replied to  CB @7.1.3    4 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
7.1.5  XXJefferson51  replied to  Texan1211 @7.1    4 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
7.1.6  XXJefferson51  replied to  Texan1211 @7.1.2    4 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Nerm_L
PhD Principal
8  Nerm_L    4 months ago

Holding debates after voting starts seems rather pointless.  Moderators from news organizations seem more intent on driving the news cycle based upon polling rather than eliciting policy debate; that appears to be a conflict of interest.  

IMO, the debate format for general elections should be scrapped.  To me, a better format would be address and rebuttal.  That's the format for elected Presidents; the President gives an address and members of Congress give a rebuttal.  

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
8.1  CB   replied to  Nerm_L @8    4 months ago

That's funny HA-HA!  You guys are such 'kidders.' What are going to do with y'all? jrSmiley_24_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Guide
9  Paula Bartholomew    4 months ago

Trump won't go along if he god forbids get the nomination.  He lives to hear his own voice.  There is no way he will pass up a platform to push the big lie.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Guide
9.1  1stwarrior  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @9    4 months ago

And, I sincerely hope you're correct Paula.

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
9.1.1  bbl-1  replied to  1stwarrior @9.1    4 months ago

Me too.  Wonder how he'll sell it and if the same people will buy it.

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
10  bbl-1    4 months ago

So the GOPERS don't want to participate in debates?  Well, there are athletic supporters and pelvic cups they can buy for protection.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
11  JohnRussell    4 months ago

The reason the RNC wants to end debates is because they believe Trump will be the nominee.  The Republican Party might not survive another Trump debate performance. 

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Guide
11.1  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  JohnRussell @11    4 months ago

I would love to see that asshat debate Glen Kirschner.  Glen would bury him in a New York minute.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
11.2  Dulay  replied to  JohnRussell @11    4 months ago

The GOP doesn't really want to end debates. Hours of 'free' advertising is too valuable. 

They want the prestige of the CPD on paper while gutting its independence. They want to debate on their terms, by their rules with cowed moderators. It's actually quite a glaring example of cowardice on their part. 

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
11.2.1  XXJefferson51  replied to  Dulay @11.2    4 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
11.2.2  XXJefferson51  replied to  Dulay @11.2    4 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
11.2.3  Dulay  replied to  XXJefferson51 @11.2.2    4 months ago

The fact that they aren't acquiescing to the GOP's ridiculous demands refutes that Xx. 

There is no such thing as a 'democrat party. 

The GOP has NO right to demand a fucking thing. 

Other than that, your comment is spot on... jrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
11.2.4  XXJefferson51  replied to  Dulay @11.2.3    4 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
11.2.5  XXJefferson51  replied to  Dulay @11.2.3    4 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Steve Ott
Professor Quiet
11.2.6  Steve Ott  replied to  XXJefferson51 @11.2.5    4 months ago
There is in fact a democrat party

The name of the party is The Democratic Party. Members are referred to as Democrats.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
11.2.7  CB   replied to  XXJefferson51 @11.2.5    4 months ago

Then don't show up. Who cares? Donald Trump is exasperating to watch anyway. Indeed, I can damn near bet it is he who is behind this 'consideration' not to hold RNC debates anyway. He wants to 'passion' his way to the RNC nomination alone! Why waste time talking to the 'lot' of red-state governor's - they can't win (against him) anyway.

See? It's all clear even to the seats on the theater's last row!

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Principal
12  MrFrost    4 months ago

Easiest way for republican candidates to avoid lying? Don't show up. Figures. 

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
13  Buzz of the Orient    4 months ago
"The Republican National Committee is considering prohibiting GOP presidential candidates from participating in debates put on by the Commission on Presidential Debates."

GOOD!!!  Then the Democrats can hold "Town Hall" type meetings without the Republicans opposing them or presenting their own arguments. 

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Guide
14  Paula Bartholomew    4 months ago

I like the idea that they won't show up.  The opponents can lay all of their shit bare with no interruptions.

 
 

Who is online



Nerm_L
magicschoolbusdropout
JBB
arkpdx
Hallux
CB


61 visitors