5:37 or 5 minutes 37 seconds

[flvegan]

Well played, CNN.

[bigwillq]

1. The ones who speak the truth

are always suppressed.

[starmaker]

2. And no Gravel n/t

[bigwillq]

6. Yeah, no Gravel

which is too bad. Even though, on paper, I agree with him on a lot of the issues..he really doesn't do too much for me and I never saw him as a viable candidate.

[Divine Discontent]

57. well most of America doesn't see Dennis as viable, but he speaks a lot of since

this is sad to see Dennis only get under 6 minutes when Obama gets 18 (it wouldn't matter if Edwards got 18, I'd still say that). It should be a tad more fair...

Disturbingly obvious that O and HRC are who the corporations want us to choose, because candidates like DK, Edwards, & Dodd are heavy on union support, civil liberty protection and, in DK and John's case tonight - talk about the neocons and/or impeachment.

[BeHereNow]

11. Or die in mysterious accidents...

RIP Paul Wellstone and others.
BHN

[flvegan]

12. Another good point.

[LakeSamish706]

3. Yep, and how important is that? I would say very important indeed... But.....

Dennis did one hell of a job knowing that he would be very limited tonite with his responses, based on his keepers.. ie: Wolfieeeeeeeeeee.. Dennis should be our next President, but probably won't because the forces that be... Simply won't accept him because he does not fall into that "Front Runner" category....

[John Q. Citizen]

43. They won't except him because he voted against the war, against NAFTA,, and

for impeachment, for single payer health insurence.

Our front runner is a Pro-NAFTA Pro-War Pro-Forced private insurance, Pro-wallstreet, hustler.

[MonkeyFunk]

62. That's not why we won't "except:" him.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

4. "Everyone will have plenty of time"

Um... except those we ignore, right Wolfie?

[TahitiNut]

34. "I promise!"

:puke:

[BeHereNow]

5. Could the bias be ANY more blatant?

You WILL accept the corporate selection for your candidate.

Debate?
Kabuki theatre is more like it.

Fuck the msm, I'm voting for the candidate
that represents the people.
KUCINICH.

They can marginalize him all they want-
I will not vote for corporate backed puppets
who are shoved into the corporate owned spotlights
in the effort to make me believe I have no choice
but to vote for another corporate interest candidate.

BHN

[flvegan]

8. Good post. Nailed it.

[lonestarnot]

7. Get it fucking America? You are being dupped! NOW GET PISSED ABOUT IT!

AND VOTE YOUR CONSCIENCE!

[bluestateguy]

9. Kuchnich is a lightweight candidate

And he acted like it tonight.

[flvegan]

10. How so? Be specific, please.

[radiclib]

13. Don't hold your breath

[flvegan]

14. I know, but

I like to throw the gloves off right away.

[MonkeyFunk]

15. Looks like the people who might ....

actually be our next President got the most time. That's as it should be.

[flvegan]

16. The people...as dictated by CNN.

That really what we want?

[MonkeyFunk]

19. If Kucinich were polling at 40%

he'd get time.

The media don't make these candidates - witness Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. Results get attention.

[flvegan]

22. Kucinich polls at higher than that.

Your resources are suspect.

The media DOES make these candidates valid. Results? You should check DK's portfolio.

[MonkeyFunk]

28. How much higher?

[flvegan]

31. I think that our very own DU poll is as valid as any other. You disagree?

[MonkeyFunk]

32. Very much

you think a DU poll reflects the national opinion?

Now which scientific polls can you cite that show Kucinich doing much better than 2%?

[flvegan]

33. "Scientific poll" is an oxymoron.

Get used to it.

[MonkeyFunk]

39. Nonsense

polls are almost always right within their margin of error. Can you find 5 examples where a national poll was off by more than, say, 5%?

People whose candidate is polling poorly love to say polls are bullshit, but in fact, they're almost always right.

Given that ALL the polls agree that Kucinich is polling somewhere between 0% and 5%, do you really assert he's doing much better, but they all conspire somehow to hide that?'


How silly.

[flvegan]

41. I question the stats behind the polls rather than the polls themselves.

I can get 10 Keebler elves to vote for chocolate chips if I want to.

[MonkeyFunk]

42. But address the issue at hand...

is it your position that Kucinich is really supported by far more than 2% of Democrats and the pollsters are all lying?

[flvegan]

44. I think the data is shit.

[MonkeyFunk]

45. So you think all the polls are wrong?

And that they're lying? Please use full sentences, even paragraphs.

[flvegan]

46. No, I think that the polls are inaccurate based on the data they garner.

Crap in, crap out.

"Please use full sentences, even paragraphs."

Try not to insult me, please. Thanks.

[MonkeyFunk]

47. Well please give examples

of polls that were very wrong.

All the polls agree right now - they say Kucinich garners about 2% support. Can you find ONE poll that disagrees with that? Surely Kucinich's campaign would be able to hire a pollster.

What's the "garbage in" in the polls that you refer to?

[flvegan]

48. You mean something like a DU poll, or one of those

"we polled 400 people who might at some point vote dem in the next decade polls" poll?

[MonkeyFunk]

49. Why are you so evasive?

Can you cite me any example of a national poll that was very wrong?

And please tell me if you think all the pollsters are lying.

[flvegan]

50. Why don't you answer direct questions?

[MonkeyFunk]

51. Is that a joke?

Here's a direct question for you to answer:

Can you show me a national poll in the last 10 years that was wrong outside its margin of error?

Bonus question:

Are all the pollsters lying about the level of Kucinich's support?

Failure to answer the first question will prove that you're just talking out your ass.

[flvegan]

52. Withdrawn response.

Prove up your data. Then your "poll" has merit.

Good luck.

Good night.

[MonkeyFunk]

53. sigh

you're making a real discussion impossible.

Yes, Dean polled well. Then he started polling less-than-well in Iowa, and he ended up losing.

Now either give me an example of a national poll that was very wrong (keeping in mind that polls are not predictive) or let's just let it go.

To make it clear - can you find some polls the day before an election that were off beyond their margin of error?

I'll save you the time - no, you can't. Polls are accurate, the electorate doesn't much care for Kucinich, and you suck at substantive debate.

[flvegan]

54. Check my response again.

I rethought it, based it upon what one could draw.

Don't go strawman, mf. Data. Find me accurate, bulletproof fucking data.

That's it.

Enjoy.

[MonkeyFunk]

55. You seem not to know what a "strawman" is.

But that aside, I'm asking you very simple questions that you won't answer.

Do you believe all the pollsters are lying? Do you believe Kucinich really has more than 2% support?

Can you give examples of polls that were wrong outside their margin of error?

You can't really believe a poll on DU is more reliable than a national, scientific poll. Can you?

[flvegan]

56. Got data?

I've answered. Sorry if you're vexed by them.

On edit: thanks for kicking the thread, though. :thumbsup:

[flvegan]

61. Wah. Guess not.

Night.

[MonkeyFunk]

63. Sorry not to reply on your schedule....

My data is all the polls. What're your data?

Stop your one-line responses - prove that all the polls are wrong.

[TahitiNut]

36. "Scientific poll"???? You mean ... like an election?

Oh. Wait. An election isn't either. (Drat.) :eyes:

[MonkeyFunk]

40. It should be easy to give examples of a poll

that's wrong.

But they all tend to agree - so either Kucinich is garnering about 2% of the vote, or all the polls conspire to lie about it.

[Divine Discontent]

58. I hardly ever agree with you monkeyfunk

lol (you know I'm teasing ya) but you are spot on with your argument here, I have come to agree after reading everything. The fact that she's polling at tied for first or solidly first should dictate a higher amount of time, and someone who polls at just a couple points should be glad they are given 5 solid minutes to speak their case. It might not be fair, but it's a reflection of the polls. As long as they KEEP doing this, then it will be okay, but if DK starts polling at 10% then he better get 10 minutes like John, do you agree? And honestly, how in the WORLD does Obama get 18 minutes? The top 5 nationally should have each got about 12 minutes and they should have monitored that.

[alarimer]

18. Well it seems those are the front-runners the media has chosen for us

The ones they have anointed got the most time. And so voters will choose based on who got the most face time on TV, not based on anything real or substantial.

[MonkeyFunk]

21. Nope

if a long-shot candidate started polling well, he or she would get plenty of attention.

Howard Dean wasn't the media darling in 2004 - he just did well, and thus got attention.

[alarimer]

60. Bullshit

They have chosen the front runners for us by eliminating what they deem to be marginal candidates? Maybe they wouldn't be so marginal if we got to hear them speak and they weren't arbitrarily excluded from debates.

[BeHereNow]

30. American Idol format for elections...

A panel of idiots selects other idiots to
present to the idiots watching a rigged talent show.
Pa-fucking-thetic when you think about it.

Politics in this country are a sham.
Sort of like the music industry-
they select the "music" to market and you
are supposed to like it and buy it, no
matter how bad it is.

BHN

[BeHereNow]

17. So the only candidate to uphold his oath is a light weight? (Reply to #9)

And just which of the "heavy weights" is pursuing
impeachment?
BHN

On edit- meant this post for "Bluestate" who called
Kucinich a "light weight" on post #9.

[flvegan]

20. To me, it looks a lot like fear of this lightweight.

Keep him away from the mic. No time for him. Don't let him talk.

[BeHereNow]

23. He is the HEAVY WEIGHT shouting impeachment on behalf of the people.

So yes, they must silence him.
Corporate interests first and always.
The only candidates who will be given the
nominations or debate time are the ones
who follow the mandate to act in the interests of
their corporate masters.

And THAT is why we and our "democracy" are riding in Arendt's
death cab...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3719210&mesg_id=3719210

BHN

[flvegan]

25. Damn right. On behalf of the Constitution!

That we here oftentimes PRETEND to support.

[BeHereNow]

26. You HAVE read THIS thread, haven't you?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3719210

I didn't see you on it so in case you haven't seen it-
trust me, it is one of the best I've ever read over all the
years I've been here...

BHN:thumbsup:

[flvegan]

27. I hadn't read it, no.

That will change this evening.

Thank you!!

[BeHereNow]

29. It is a MUST read. Absolutely one of the best threads EVER!

Trust me, trust me, trust me on that fact.
BHN:hi:

[bdamomma]

24. I can compare CNN to Fox

anyone who speaks the truth gets less time, and the first 15 to 20 min was between Hillary and Obama, weren't there other candidates on that stage, again, the MSM dictating to the American people who to vote for.

[RufusTFirefly]

35. Sorry Obama fans!

Truly, there's a lot to like about him. He's got charisma and his academic credentials are so unimpeachable that they're off the table. His organizing experience and early anti-war stance are admirable. And he's been known to give a good speech. But at the end of the day he's just a kinder, gentler Hillary -- a fallback should the triangulator falter.

[in_cog_ni_to]

37. DISGUSTING! I knew he barely had a chance to speak, but THAT is

fucking ridiculous! Hell, it took forever for Dennis to even get a chance to open his mouth! The media sucks. That's all there is to it.:grr:

[Tektonik]

38. I understand the time alotted to Hillary and Obama

but what the fuck is Bill Richardson doing with that much time. Edwards and DK got screwed.

[Divine Discontent]

59. I was shocked as BIll droned on, and on, and on.. and on..

about nothing. 90% of the time DK spoke it was about issues. And his one attack notwithstanding, he did pretty well. I don't think any candidate should get less than 8 minutes in a 2 hr debate, and the top polled candidates should get about 12-14. Richardson was totally allowed to waste 3 or 4 minutes that could have been split by DK and Edwards. Then 3 of Obama's minutes could have went to Biden, then I think everything would have been OK.

CNN kinda blew it... Richardson needs to give it up, wow, I don't think he could have been more lackluster if he tried.