zerocapitalism:

ravingsofamadpoet:

wtfisgoingonews:

Members on Saturday rejected a proposal to allow presidential candidates to participate in third-party debates, effectively ending hopes for a debate focused solely on climate change. Activists and presidential candidates alike had long called for a debate on the issue, and one candidate — former Texas Rep. Beto O’Rourke — called the decision not to have one “baffling.”

And in a move that, according to Bloomberg, incensed state party officials, the DNC announced it had commissioned a cybersecurity firm to hack its assets as a means of testing a virtual caucus system set to be used in contests in Iowa and other states next year. The hack was successful, casting doubt on the reliability of those systems, but state leaders claimed the test was unfair and a poor indicator of caucus security. Nevertheless, it raised new concerns about cybersecurity within a party still smarting from a 2016 email leak that sparked bitter acrimony during that campaign’s nominating process.

Members of the DNC voted 222-137 against allowing Democratic presidential candidates to participate in a third-party debate focused solely on climate change without facing sanctions from party brass. Currently, the DNC closely regulates how and when candidates can debate, and the vote gave it a mandate to continue doing so.

Had the vote gone the other way, candidates would have been allowed “to participate in multi-candidate issue-specific forums with the candidates appearing on the same stage, engaging one another in discussion.” This would have set the debate stage for the #ClimateDebate that environmental groups, notably the youth-led Sunrise Movement, had been advocating for — and that 15 candidates said they would be willing to participate in.

Top DNC officials, including Chair Tom Perez, were opposed to the resolution. Perez has repeatedly argued that no one issue should take precedence over another and said that a climate debate would unfairly advantage Washington state Gov. Jay Inslee.

So, like…. if a giant meteor was going to kill all life on the planet earth halfway through the next presidential term, guaranteed, 100%, everyone dies, the DNC wouldn’t hold a debate on it because that would mean putting all other issues aside and focusing on the one thing that was definitely going to kill everyone in 2 and a half years? Ok, sounds great. Totally effective political system. Love it.

Well I mean you also wouldn’t want that to advantage the low-polling candidate who has already dropped out of the presidential race.