I find that disturbing.

for the last 25 years. You can say that they have "evolved".

nt

And some of these people have the nerve to tell me I'll need to close ranks with them if and when Clinton gets the nomination. I haven't forgotten. I won't forget.

hehe chuckle so funnyyyyyyy

passed legislation allowing a few Corporations to buy the people's airwaves.

Btw, do you even read before you post?

First, this channel is run by private citizens and has nothing to do with Bernie other than they are supporters who knew the media would not cover him as they should, and used their skills to do so themselves.

So what do you mean 'Bernie can start his own'?? Apparently not, he would be shut down just like these guys have been by Huge Corporations who have chosen the candidate they know they can trust.

...familiar with Federal Campaign Finance law:

$0

....of that "$500,000"?

If what you say happened, you should have reported them to the FEC.

I can't believe that of the $476,000 in contributions not a single person allegedly "pressured" to contribute didn't report the pressure to the FEC. Not a single disgruntled employee.



BTW, over my career I worked for three companies in the Fortune 100, including the Bank of New York (NO, not a "bankster", Rhett accused me of that a few weeks ago - I worked in their IT department) and never had pressure of any kind. My father was an IT executive for them and Citicorp - again, ZERO pressure.

Unless there is any evidence of pervasive "pressure", it's only a story with no legs. Sorry, sounds good but highly unlikely.

Sen Sanders' campaign is being funded by the people and Clinton's is funded by the billionaires. So I guess you side with the oligarchy. Too hard to actually fight to solve poverty, just ignore it.

A Goldman-Sachs Admin will put corp profits over eliminating poverty. Whose side are you on in the class war?

....."$31 donations"!

So one out of every 300 men, women, and children in the US has contributed to his campaign?

Sen Sanders if for the People and HRC is for Goldman-Sachs, and Time-Warner, etc. Do you honestly believe they will want her to cut into their profits to reduce poverty? Not on your life. 50 million people living in poverty and you want to continue the corporate run status quo.

....Hillary Clinton will be the Presidential nominee for the Democratic Party and most likely will win the general election in November 2016 and succeed our first black President as our first woman President.

into the WH. Too bad for the people living in poverty. Goldman-Sachs doesn't give a crap about them.

Why would Democrats support the 1%? Do you hope they will like you?

....oh, you also occasionally make incorrect assumtions about me, too.

When did cable TV become art of the airwaves?

out!

Elections cannot be PRIVATIZED in a DEMOCRACY. Now either they HAVE BEEN, meaning the people did not know this and we not a Democracy, because you can't privatize elections in a democracy, OR John Ellis and all of us, have a legal case against CNN

There are a few remarkably disturbing comments in this thread, just a few thankfully, indicating that OWNING Political Debates giving the right to Corporations to obstruct the Democratic Progress, is just fine.

I thought I could not be shocked anymore! But that is pretty shockiing on a political forum, Dem or any other.

...internet access could not participate, are acceptable to many here?

So you're implying that people who can't afford cable television have the resources to watch the debate on Youtube?

By the way, in 2010 91% of all homes in the United States have either cable or satellite television, probably even higher here in 2015. That significantly cuts down on those who didn't have live access to the debate OR the immediate rerun of the debate within an hour after it ended.

What does reaching poor voters and cord-cutters have to do with it, when there are people like me out there who have access to both cable and Internet?

Does it disturb you that even more people might approve of Bernie's performance?

If there is any implication, it would be that the parties and the media are curbing the poor and cord-cutter demographics' exposure to obscure candidates (like Bernie and O'Malley) who will fight for them.

Another post said 7% of the population relies on broadcast. That's millions of people.

...could it be that they couldn't see the live or rerun on CNN but could see the streaming rerun of the debate? Simple question.

and these TV threads have been veering toward larger problems with access.

But to answer your question, cutting off streaming compounds the access problem.

Its also possible that the poor are simply being damned (after all, some networks have started following vagrants around in a disapproving manner). Meanwhile, Dem establishment's messaging is about the middle class.

....what medium would they use to watch the debate on Youtube? Simple question.

The debate was public, it wasn't conducted in a basement somewhere. It was "broadcast" (use whatever word you want) live with I believe only two short commercial breaks. It was then rerun at 11PM (eastern).

...about progressive candidates (and ideas) reaching as many voters as possible?

If so, you should accept the answer I gave. Furthermore, people I know have Internet but no cable in order to save money. So that is relevant to the point being made as well.

The best way to "broadcast" public debates is to use both broadcast TV (airwaves not cable) and free Internet streaming.

The worst way is to place the debate in the walled-garden of paid access such as cable.

And you have your answer, sir.

Have a nice day.

74% did NOT see debate. So the online polls were far more scientific.

Bernie won, there is no doubt about it, Only the Corp media says otherwise.

...allowing a few Corporations to buy the people's airwaves." ?

If you're referring to the Telecommunications Act of 1996, it wasn't passed by President Clinton it was passed by Congress. Clinton only signed it into law.

The Senate passed it 81-18 (1 No Vote) - 51 Republicans and 30 Democrats voted Aye, 2 Republicans and 16 Democrats voted Nay.

The House passed a similar bill by a vote of 305-117 (12 No Vote) - 208 Republicans and 97 Democrats voted Aye, 18 Republicans and 98 Democrats voted Nay.

The conference bill was passed without a vote in either house.

Hardly a bill that Democrats or the President were supportive of. Yes, Clinton signed it because the votes in both houses were veto-proof.

So you're asserting that way back in 1996 (19 years ago) President Clinton conspired with the Republicans to change the existing Telecomunications laws just in case some day his wife would run for President and there might be a need for a network to prevent another outlet from broadcasting what they broadcast live?

so many Democratic votes.

The Telecommunications Act is just one of a number of really bad bills that Bill Clinton signed.

I will not vote for Hilary because of her support of this kind of corporate dominance of our political culture and because of her wrong vote on Iraq and lack of judgment on so many issues and in so many situations.

She was a private citizen at the time, but her husband was President of the United States. I don't recall her ever suggesting it was a bad idea. Do you?

--a bill Bernie wants.

nt

count her time in the White House.

That is not much experience. Her voting record is good, but she made serious mistakes in that short time.

Hillary either counts the White House years and takes responsibility for Bill Clinton's actions that harmed our country including but not limited to the signing and passage of the Telecommunications Act or she admits to having relatively little experience in politics.

I am very concerned at the news that CNN has shut down BernieTV over a copyright dispute.

I am concerned that CNN has edited the debate video and refuses to allow the transmission of the unedited version.

That seems to me to be a curtailment of freedom of speech.

I am concerned that Comcast which is the owner of CNN and whose employees are big Hillary supporters is editing that video.

Comcast has an interest and has expressed its opposition to our current internet policy if I am not mistaken and also has wanted other government favors such as mergers and consolidations of the media.

That Comcast supports Hillary causes me to question what side she is on when it comes to the regulation of telecommunications and the internet.

Let's be honest. She's a lawyer first and foremost and a very sharp one at that.

impossible to argue with those who support the 1%er...

for that matter or any other legislation. Presidents don't pass legislation. Of course, you know that. As for the telecom bill of 1996, Clinton opposed it? He only signed it because it was veto proof? You're kidding. Right?

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=52289

It's unlikely a deal was struck to make Hillary president until she agreed to concede the primary in 2008 and was handed the job at State as a consolation prize.