Last edited Sat Jul 18, 2015, 11:27 PM - Edit history (1)

They had a wonderful opportunity with the scheduled meeting with Sanders. They blew it, because acting like jerks in front of the cameras was more important than discussing the problem with a willing ally.

I agree there should be a debate like that.

Hopefully the issues will be debated in depth during the South Carolina primary and debate.

I think they might have had that today, I don't think I heard them ask any questions though.

Today was the day they should have asked questions and received answers. That one lady was saying, 'burn this shit down'. How can you have a conversation with threats like that?

How in the fuck would anyone here be able to answer that question?

Probably deliberately. Take it up with the DNC. Perhaps Hillary can hook you.

You don't get to tell other adults what language to use.

This is a place for adults - Right?

since Hillarians seems to have a personal connection with W=S anyway.

I don't deserve to be treated like a piece of trash because I deigned to ask a question.

I'm to be treated like a second class citizen?

Way to be a representative.

eom

and decide to attack my character? Thanks.

You just implied that because you financially support the board, you deserve some kind of protection, and I don't? I think you just implied you were the bully when you started acting like a snob.

I'm done with you. See you in another thread.

eom

Go Bernie Go!

And I am not John McLame.

There are quite a few posters here who really...aggressively...don't "fit in."

Put another way, feeding the trolls is ill advised.

If starting threads like this are the price of "fitting in" I can't afford it:


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7499972

I don't fit in either, but for different reasons. Mostly because the Bush Dynasty seems to have taken over as of 1980 and never left.

Gay folks can serve in the military and get married
Poor males can get Medicaid because of its expansion under ACA. Prior to ACA indigent male adults were excluded. With the subsidies millions of the uninsured have become insured.
Physically challenged adults have protection because of the Americans with Disabilities Act
The economy worked for a lot of people in the 90s
President Obama dug us out of the biggest economic ditch since the Great Depression.


Is America nirvana, no, but progress is possible and there are things we can accomplish collectively to improve the lot of the middle class and the poor. The rich will always be able to take care of themselves.

And that continued for years. The ACA and pretty much all of his policies were Republican based, including how to deal with the economy, his opposition to LBGT equality for most of the battle, the Deepwater Horizon disaster, continuing wars and domestic spying, protecting the Bush Admin from war crimes prosecution...all of which have hurt a lot of people in the process.

He seems to do better when he's free not to pander. Bibi's miscalculation by siding with the GOP allowed him to fully engage with Iran, possibly creating the real legacy moment he always wanted. His gut reaction to the police overstep event early in his tenure was appropriate and should have been carried forward, but he apparently backed off on someone's "reality based" advice and it turned into the beer at the WH moment instead. Now we have a much bigger issue having to be addressed by BLM since the can got kicked.

This had probably all been hashed before though- the bottom line is that the President campaigned on changing the country's course, and spent most of his term trying to keep it all in place and keeping people like the Bushes happy. Was that a worth goal, do you think?

My initial response is the space in which the president has to operate is narrower than most think. I don't believe any president can make the world anew.

You're using it wrong.

This isn't a bar.

eom

.. to a passive/aggressive help group.

He or she appears to be an emotionally well adjusted person.

truly want to cover the issues adequately.

JMO...

.... all 5 are invited ....

What do you think?

There is so much bias and disruption, talking over, cherry picking and timing restraints imposed. It's like watching the Gong Show. We had better debates with enough time when the League of Women Vopters hosted them. I hate the way they do them now.

they're calling the debate shots.

How about it? Will you contact them too? Bernie has said he wants more debates.

Let's ALL write the DNC and ask for that. Perhaps it could be sponsored by an African American media outlet, in combination with Univision?

If the GOP can have a Family Leadership Council Summit we can have a summit to discuss issues affecting people of color,

They control the content and format of the debates. Maybe we could try a concerted lobbying campaign from the grassroots?

Nothing is ever gained by being timid....we must be bold.

Who has the info to get this sent to the DNC?

Maybe a Change.org petition?

Let's get on the DNC.

Do you know how to start a petition? We can all tweet it, etc. to get people on board to sign it. Maybe the DNC will listen as they should.

I will work on starting one in the morning.


Are you familiar with it?


Is it difficult?

Let's do it.

and contact the dnc or whoever is responsible for setting up debates. generalities are not enough. while I have a general idea of what some of those issues might be, a specific list as you see them would be most useful. much more likely to have a positive outcome that protesting in an auditorium (regardless of why one is protesting)

I would be a liar if I said I knew what all their issues are but they are an important constituency and they seem aggrieved. That being said I think we all can think of some of their issues off the top of my head.

with two dem candidates and it sounds like they blew it

but these issues should be included in the debates, esp with increasing concern about police conduct

appropriate and necessary At the very least there should be a major portion of a debate set aside to answer some hard questions.
It's been a mixed blessing having the first Black President these past two terms. President Obama had to walk the fine line of being "everyone's" president and not appear to favor any one group. In doing so, issues that impact the African American community specifically were rarely addressed. Yes, we began the expansion of Medicaid and Health Care and they helped middle and working class people but only very recently has the institutionalized violence against Blacks become a national issue. The difference in how the law treats or severely mistreats Americans solely because of their race is a national shame.

The next administration is the one to fight this fight. Whoever is elected President in 2016 is going to have to work to help all Americans to solve this problem and heal these wounds. The first step is electing a candidate the understands the problem exists and has some answers about how to start addressing them.

What place should it hold in the campaign?
How are we harmed by by racism?

DSB,if we were a country that really wanted to solve its ills, we would have such a debate. We would have more than a debate, we would have the best minds, the money, the time and the heart to fix the police, fix the system, and fix the disease of hate.

But as you can see, we are not ready to stop asking "what's in this for me?" or to take the responsibility that moment to moment we may be upholding the very system that keeps this in place.

I cannot bear that we are so effing unimpressed by the shear number of Black Lives Lost.

It is about Black people getting killed.

It has always been about that. I know Bernie gets it, please for all things wonderful....stop thinking this is about politics as usual. It is about stopping the senseless deaths of Black people at the hands of authority.

That's it.

Why ask for it in a debate. To give the topic weight. So that the candidates have to address it and the people who are watching will actually have to think about it.

What is it?

Black lives ending at the hand of those we put in authority.

I responded to her concerns as well but a debate would be terrific and I completely agree we should get one started.

But just like everyone else, BLM wants to make sure where the candidates stand before they cast their vote.

It really isn't one or the other.

How the BLM issue at Netroots was so purposefully re-purposed against Sanders and O'Malley. It really makes no sense, neither candidate anticipated that (not the BLM protesters, that was.... OK but not executed properly). What I take issue with is that Sanders now has some sort of Scarlet Letter from it - totally unearned and dirty.

i need to add that salient fact so i do not get attacked as a clueless white liberal sad, but true.

since they have written in clauses that prohibit candidates from engaging in debates sponsored by independent organizations.

Maybe the Congressional Black Caucus could host it?

I'd like to see each candidate asked about the demilitarization of LEO's, how to curtail the deeply entrenched racism that operates within the US justice as a whole from the street cop all the way to the courtroom and that is just the beginning

I can think of a couple thing and NO 'sensitivity training' ain't one of them

We already had our 6th one at this point in the 2008 campaign.

I think a debate themed social and economic justice for minorities and oppressed would be excellent and perfectly timed.

I also think some of the replies you have gotten go way past and dog whistle or racist comment Hillary has been accused of in '08. I know we have an issue with that here, I didn't realize some were so comfortable and open about it. Painful to read.

Seems to be some passion involved by some ensuring BLM are silenced.

The content is step two.

Can we, through BLM, put some pressure on the DNC?

In reality, our "debates" aren't what I consider to be debates, anyway. I'd like to see all candidates address the same questions and get equal talking time. That never happens.

Debates focused on real issues of importance to voters, rather than media talking points, would also be good. I'm kind of liking the idea of debates focused on a specific area, that could delve more deeply. If they are giving us 6 debates, they could give us focus on 6 major themes, one for each debate...

Right along with every other Democratic concerns. To ask one entire debate on the topic is probably a minefield the Democratic party is too hesitant to tiptoe over.

Look what's happened on DU. Look how divided some of us have become.

We need to talk about it more, as a nation in a widely viewed public forum. The rightwing has no problem talking about it via their coded speech and dog whistle politics.

Lets see what they all have to say about it.