8
   

Russia's propaganda machine discovers 2020 Democratic candidate Tulsi Gabbard.

 
 
hightor
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Oct, 2019 03:12 am
@Lash,
Lash, how would the corporate news media and the DNC "rig" the debate? Gabbard isn't saying that voting is rigged, she's saying the debate is rigged.
Quote:
If she has committed some crime, you should be able to name it.

A candidate doesn't need to have committed a crime before I decide whether they're worth my support or not.
Lash
 
  -2  
Reply Sun 13 Oct, 2019 03:32 am
@hightor,
But all that has to happen is a handful of people you don’t like says they do like her.

That’s stupid.

Your Russians could have a field day with that .

In 2016, Donna Brazile gave questions to Hillary Clinton so that she had the unfair advantage of forming her answers in advance of other candidates. That’s only ONE WAY you can rig a debate...
Lash
 
  -2  
Reply Sun 13 Oct, 2019 03:34 am
@hightor,
Way #2 to rig a debate:

Carefully allow many more DNC ESTABLISHMENT TYPES in the audience who cheer for specific candidates and respond negatively to certain others.

This has been done to Bern more than once.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 13 Oct, 2019 03:36 am
WAY #3 to rig a debate:

Moderators toss softballs to establishment favorites and use unfair gotcha questions to those candidates they want to weaken.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 13 Oct, 2019 03:50 am
WAY #4 to rig a debate:

Moderators incentivized to be hostile to certain candidates preface questions with erroneous premises which force a candidate who wants to appear amiable to use half their answer time refuting the premise, which also makes their scant televised pitch time negative. Later, they’re described as argumentative and their incredibly valuable screen time is wasted.

Thus, the widespread narrative about that candidate’s screen time for weeks is what the powers that be who orchestrated the hit job designed it to be.
roger
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Oct, 2019 03:57 am
@Lash,
True
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Oct, 2019 05:19 am
@Lash,
Quote:
But all that has to happen is a handful of people you don’t like says they do like her.

Oh come on. Do you really think I'm that stupid? Do you really think I have no idea what her positions are? Actually people I do like have said that they like her. In fact, I wouldn't have paid much attention to her at all except that some people I respect were saying good things about her. It's true though — I don't like Fox News and I'm not a fan of Russian intelligence operatives expressing such interest in our elections — but that's not how I choose the candidates I support.

Has there been any indication that any candidate in these debates has been given the questions beforehand?

Has there been any evidence that the audience is being ideologically screened? That should be relatively easy to ascertain.

Any candidate should be able to deal with "gotcha" questions — a clever candidate can turn them around and even make the questioner appear to be biased.

As far as moderator hostility is concerned, again a skilled candidate isn't going to get rattled by that sort of thing and can turn it to his or her advantage.

You've identified several problems with the debate format and identified them as ways in which the debates are "rigged". I've criticized the debate structure many times on this message board. I hate the way these are turned into raucous cheering fests. I believe, as glitzy spectacles, they do a disservice to the electorate. When you've got two dozen candidates running, however, the logistics make it really difficult. And there are always going to be front runners and dark horses and audience favorites — because politics has been turned into show biz. Someone's always going to have a bad night — that doesn't mean the debate was "rigged" against the candidate. Occasionally a candidate will get in a particularly good response which motivates a positive reaction from the audience — that doesn't mean the audience was specifically chosen to respond that way.

You know, my heart sank as soon as it became apparent that there were going to be twenty-plus candidates, precisely because getting that many people on stage trying to stand out and score points leads to the situation the Democrats are now facing. But the debates aren't "rigged". The format just sucks.
Lash
 
  -2  
Reply Sun 13 Oct, 2019 05:52 am
@hightor,
Why are you pretending that you don’t know it was rigged for Clinton in 2016, and that moderators give preferential treatment and negative treatment to who they please?
hightor
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Oct, 2019 06:30 am
@Lash,
I was discussing the 2019 debates. Gabbard wasn't a candidate in 2016.

If a candidate can't handle a difficult question in a way which shows some sort of mastery of the issues that may indicate a lack of preparation or a failure to comprehend the details. On the other hand, a candidate lagging in the polls can emerge as a front runner if the candidate is able to dispense with a perceived hostile question with logic, dignity, and intelligence. Obvious negative treatment can rally some people to support a candidate and preferential treatment can offend people who are especially committed to fair play. None of this denotes "rigging". As I said before, with ten — or in this case possibly twelve — candidates on stage, I don't expect much in the way of in-depth responses, and I think the format sucks.
Lash
 
  -3  
Reply Sun 13 Oct, 2019 06:37 am
@hightor,
I’m sure you would like to try to act as though cheating and rigging debates and the entire primary in 2016 has nothing to do with cheating and rigging debates and the entire primary in 2019.

I don’t know of a big enough fool to take what you’re saying seriously. Your dishonest comments are of no value to me. Don’t bother responding to me again.

You’re all dodge —like a spokesperson for the DNC.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  -3  
Reply Sun 13 Oct, 2019 06:40 am
@hightor,
hightor wrote:

Oh come on. Do you really think I'm that stupid?

I thought for a while that this was the problem, but no, I see now that you’re just that dishonest.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Oct, 2019 07:00 am
Adventures in rational debate.
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  2  
Reply Sun 13 Oct, 2019 07:02 am
Somebody wrote:
I’m sure you would like to try to act as though cheating and rigging debates and the entire primary in 2016 has nothing to do with cheating and rigging debates and the entire primary in 2019.


I'm unaware that there was any "cheating and rigging" in the '16 debates other than the incident with Brazille that was exposed. The super-delegate controversy was a different, institutional, issue.

Since there was so much attention given to the shortcomings of the 2016 primary and debate process the DNC changed many of the practices which led to such a high level of dissension and criticism. Not surprisingly, with a field of twenty-plus candidates, the new structure has been tested to the extreme. As to "the entire primary in 2019", it hasn't happened yet so I think it's a bit early to claim that anything's been "rigged". Other than the entire primary process itself, which should be abolished.

Somebody wrote:
Your dishonest comments are of no value to me.

They're of no value to me either so I'd appreciate it if somebody could provide some specific evidence and point out my lies.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 13 Oct, 2019 07:40 am
https://www.google.com/amp/s/observer.com/2016/10/rigged-debates-wikileaks-emails-confirm-media-in-clintons-pocket/amp/

Rigged Debates: Wikileaks Emails Confirm Media in Clinton’s Pocket

Clinton's people asked for all sorts of special treatment from the DNC and the press—and they got it

By Michael Sainato • 10/14/16 3:30pm

Hillary Clinton embraces campaign chair John Podesta on October 12, 2011 in Washington, DC. Chip Somodevila/Getty Images)
On October 12, WikiLeaks released part four and five of Clinton campaign Chair John Podesta’s emails, with part six to be released on October 13, and part seven to follow on October 14.

“As soon as the nomination is wrapped up, I will be your biggest surrogate,” current Interim Chair of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) Donna Brazile, wrote to Podesta in a January 2016 email. As a Vice Chair of the DNC, Brazile was bound to neutrality per the charter, but as shown in several emails released so far, that was not the case.

“I pushed back hard on this, and Axe. So weird to attack the kids the night before the first primary,” Brazile wrote in an email she forwarded to Podesta about what CNN was doing while she served as a CNN contributor.

On October 10, an email was released that showed Brazile tipping off the Clinton campaign to an outreach campaign being conducted by the Sanders campaign. Brazile defended herself on Twitter claiming she also sent the Sanders campaign “advice,” but did not release or cite any examples.

On October 11, The Young Turks’ Jordan Chariton first reported another email that showed Brazile tipping off the Clinton campaign to a question on the death penalty that would be asked at a CNN Town Hall the next day. Brazile was a CNN contributor at the time, and that wasn’t her only helpful tip. “For the debate team,” she wrote in a March email about the Voting Rights Act, forwarded to Podesta.

In 2013, during an interview with ABC News, Brazile said, “if Clinton gets in the race, there will be a coronation of her,” foreshadowing that she and the rest of the DNC and Democratic Party would line up behind Hillary Clinton as the nominee before a single person voted in the Democratic primaries.

In a March 2016 email, Mark Alan Siegel, a former New York State Assemblyman and Democratic official, advised the Clinton campaign staff to offer Bernie Sanders and his supporters a reduction in future super delegates to pacify them. “So if we ‘give’ Bernie this in the Convention’s rules committee, his people will think they’ve ‘won’ something from the Party Establishment,” he wrote. “And it functionally doesn’t make any difference anyway. They win. We don’t lose. Everyone is happy.”

Neera Tanden, president of the Center for American Progress which publishes Think Progress, wrote in a January 2016 email, “But I should say that I would do whatever Hillary needs always. I owe her a lot. And I’m a loyal soldier.”

An April 2015 email describes the Clinton campaign and DNC coordinating to rig the debate schedule for Clinton’s benefit. The debate schedule was a commonly cited criticism against then-DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who resigned after the WikiLeaks release of DNC emails in July showed her overt favoritism for Clinton all through the primaries.

“Through internal discussions, we concluded that it was in our interest to: 1) limit the number of debates (and the number in each state); 2) start the debates as late as possible; 3) keep debates out of the busy window between February 1 and February 27, 2016 (Iowa to South Carolina)” read the email from Charlie Baker, a senior advisor to the Clinton campaign from the Dewey Square Group. “The other campaigns have advocated (not surprisingly) for more debates and for the schedule to start significantly earlier.”

An email from November 2014 shows Clinton campaign staff backing a law that would push the Illinois primary from March to April or May, with their reasoning being that the state could potentially serve as a lifeline to moderate Republicans as it did for Mitt Romney in 2012. “The Clintons won’t forget what their friends have done for them. It would be helpful to feel out what path, if any, we have to get them to yes. This will probably take some pushing,” wrote Clinton Campaign Manager Robby Mook to Podesta. The primary wound up not being moved, with Trump winning Illinois, but the push was strategic as Clinton didn’t poll well against moderate Republicans such as Sen. Marco Rubio and Gov. John Kasich.

In damage control over a false statement Clinton made about Nancy Reagan’s role in the HIV/AIDS epidemic, the Clinton campaign noted in an email chain that they would have to coerce Clinton into admitting she was wrong. “Here is a revised draft of a statement. It does include the words ‘I made a mistake’ in the first line. We need a strategy for getting her to approve this.”

And then there’s the overly docile press, who were so eager to help Clinton get elected. In one email chain discussing the upcoming release of exchanges between Clinton and writer Sidney Blumenthal, insiders noted that the Associated Press appeared to be willing to allow the Clinton campaign to plant favorable stories. “[T]hey are considering placing a story with a friendly at the AP (Matt Lee or Bradley Klapper), that would lay this out before the majority on the committee has a chance to realize what they have and distort it,” wrote Nick Merrill, the Clinton campaign’s traveling press secretary.

“She is going to read me the story later today off the record to further assure me,” Clinton campaign Communications Director Jennifer Palmieri wrote in an email to Podesta and other staff about New York Times‘ Maggie Haberman coordinating directly with the campaign to provide Clinton with favorable coverage.

In March 2015, an email from Clinton campaign manager assistant Marissa Astor provides some options for when a story in the AP will be published, with a statement from Clinton and Q&A regarding her private email server, in addition to an option to “pre-negotiate” a TV interview.

An April 2015 email from Clinton staff issued a press policy that says, “Less than 100 people – NO cell phones, NO press.” According to the email, events with over 100 people, cell phones are allowed, “and ONE print pooler will be escorted in for her remarks only and then escorted out. NO tv cameras. Over 500 people in a public space – YES cell phones, OPEN press (all press access including tv cameras). At fundraisers in private homes NO tv cameras no matter the size. ONE print pooler only.” According to the email, Hillary Clinton approved the policy. “Huma spoke to HRC and she agreed with this plan,” wrote Kristina Schake, the Clinton campaign deputy communications director.

In a January 2015 email, in response to an inquiry as to whether the Clinton staff have any diversity they can point to, political consultant Jim Margolis jokes, “Robby claims he’s 1/16th Apache, so we should be all set.”

Part four, five, six, and seven brings the total WikiLeaks release of Podesta emails to around 10,000 out of about 50,000.
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  2  
Reply Sun 13 Oct, 2019 08:07 am
I don't know what this well-known story about Clinton in 2016, which I've never disputed, has to do with Tulsi Gabbard's claims in 2019.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  -2  
Reply Sun 13 Oct, 2019 08:34 am
‘“I'm unaware that there was any "cheating and rigging" in the '16 debates other than the incident with Brazille that was exposed.”’

———————————

“...other than” the CNN consultant / DNC president-soldier avowed to make Clinton president.

Yeah. We need a few more examples of collusion to cheat a presidency...in THIS case, anyway.
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  3  
Reply Sun 13 Oct, 2019 09:19 am
Brazile wrote:
...if Clinton gets in the race, there will be a coronation of her...

This explains quite a lot. Things didn't work out as expected and there was a lot of scrambling to shore up support. I'm not saying that everything exposed in the stolen e-mails was wholesome or above criticism, by any means. I've never held the DNC (or the RNC) in particularly high regard but these sorts of behind the scenes maneuvers are going on all the time within all sorts of organizations — organizations whose internal communications haven't been revealed. At least they're not discussing hush money, bribery, or political pay-offs. Now, if Sanders should win the nomination, I'd hope his team would work just as assiduously for him in trying to drum up editorial support, keeping his campaign on message, and plotting strategy.
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  3  
Reply Sun 13 Oct, 2019 12:48 pm
I wrote:
If a candidate can't handle a difficult question in a way which shows some sort of mastery of the issues that may indicate a lack of preparation or a failure to comprehend the details.

Frank Bruni wrote:
At the debate this coming Tuesday night, they should grill her [Warren] — and one another — with less delicacy than they have exhibited to date. Assuming that Trump lasts until November 2020, he’s going to use every potentially unflattering detail of his opponent that he can dig up, along with the usual heap of lies, to attack him or her. The nation can’t afford for those attacks to be successful. So now is the time, well before the voting in caucuses and primaries begins, to size up the various Democratic candidates’ hypocrisies, half-truths and vulnerabilities. Perhaps more important, it’s the time to discover how persuasively they can explain the parts of their biographies and records that cry out for some explanation.

nyt
0 Replies
 
revelette3
 
  2  
Reply Mon 14 Oct, 2019 10:23 am
Quote:
Representative Tulsi Gabbard, one of 12 Democratic presidential candidates who have qualified for this week’s televised debate, said on Monday that she would participate in the forum after raising the possibility of boycotting it to protest what she sees as a “rigging” of the election.

Ms. Gabbard had argued that the corporate news media and Democratic National Committee were working together to influence the event. On Monday, she offered little explanation of why she had dropped her objection to participating. “I just want to let you know that I will be attending the debate,” she wrote in an email to supporters.

While Ms. Gabbard had met the qualifying criteria to participate in Tuesday’s debate, she is among the lower-polling candidates and has struggled to gain traction, never breaking 3 percent in any major poll. She failed to qualify for the September debate and has not yet made the stage for the November face-off. The New York Times is a co-sponsor of Tuesday’s debate with CNN.

Ms. Gabbard has disputed the polls selected by the national committee as “certifying” candidates for the debate, arguing that many of the noncertified surveys are more accurate. Those polls could also help Ms. Gabbard qualify for the November debate.

Her call won support from a fellow primary candidate, Marianne Williamson, who is also polling among the bottom tier of presidential hopefuls.

“I have great respect for Tulsi for saying such inconvenient truth,” Ms. Williamson posted on Twitter last week, after Ms. Gabbard first raised the idea of boycotting the debate.

Ms. Gabbard’s warnings of a rigged election are likely to resonate with her base, an unconventional mix of anti-interventionist progressives, libertarians, contrarian culture-war skeptics, white nationalists and conspiracy theorists. They like her isolationist foreign policy, her calling out of what she sees as censorship in the major technology platforms and her support for drug decriminalization.

Buoyed by frequent appearances on Tucker Carlson’s Fox News show, her quixotic, bare-bones campaign has also won praise from some surprising admirers, including Stephen K. Bannon, President Trump’s former chief strategist; former Representative Ron Paul, a libertarian star; and Franklin Graham, the influential evangelist, who has said he finds her “refreshing.”

Ms. Gabbard has lobbed some of the toughest attacks on the debate stage. In July, she assailed Senator Kamala Harris over her record as a prosecutor, becoming the most searched candidate on Google in the hours after the event.

Ms. Harris later shot back, calling Ms. Gabbard an “apologist” for Syria’s president, Bashar al-Assad, whom Ms. Gabbard controversially visited in Damascus in January 2017.

A telegenic military veteran, Ms. Gabbard, once a Democratic darling, began falling out of party favor during President Barack Obama’s administration, when she picked a series of high-profile fights over foreign policy, joining Republicans in demanding that Mr. Obama use the term “radical Islam.”

In 2016, she resigned her position as vice chair of the Democratic National Committee to endorse Senator Bernie Sanders over Hillary Clinton. She has said that she believes that the primary was “rigged” by the party committee against Mr. Sanders.


https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/14/us/politics/tulsi-gabbard-debate.html

hightor
 
  4  
Reply Mon 14 Oct, 2019 10:56 am
@revelette3,
Interesting how "progressives" (and Comrade Baldimo) on this site are quick to defend Gabbard:

Quote:

(...)

When you itemize Gabbard’s public positions on the main fare, she is a standard Democrat, who is not even listed among the members of the Progressive Caucus. Her critical vote scorecard from Progressive Punch is an F, rating her 136th overall, between Dwight Evans (PA) and Mark Veasey (TX). She has carried water for billionaire uber-Zionist casino magnate, and Trump-buddy Sheldon Adelson. And she loves to post pictures of her in her Army uniform, an opportunistic cash-out of her veteran status which ought to trouble anti-militarists.

Perhaps more troubling than her essentially centrist politics and her cozy relationship with Adelson, however, is her selective if vicious Islamophobia and her willingness to associate with anti-immigration reactionaries. When sharing the stage with the execrable Islamophobe and nitwit Bill Maher, she dressed down then-President Obama for not calling “violent extremism” “Islamic extremism,” adding that we have to “identify our enemy to defeat them.” Once a strong supporter of drone attacks, Gabbard has essentially endorsed Russian and Assadist bombing in Syria, because they are ostensibly targeting ISIS. I am not an advocate of US military intervention anywhere, so this is not a call to arms, but by the same token, if one opposes militarism, then one ought to oppose Russian and Assadist militarism as well. Nor am I tapping into the insane post-Cold War Russophobia of shills like MSNBC, but opposing conspiracy theories does not mean calling Putin and company a bunch of angels. Leftist apologists for Putin/Assad often forget that it was Assad’s commitment to neoliberal “reforms” that set up the social crisis that Assad’s own government then escalated into a full-blown civil war. Gabbard proceeded to jump the shark with an ill-conceived January trip to Syria to meet Assad himself.

And during the bloodthirsty seven-week Israeli attack on Gaza in 2014, Gabbard co-sponsored a lying Congressional Resolution that claimed Israel has restrained itself and attacked only “terrorist” targets during that campaign.

When Donald Trump began appointing generals to cabinet positions, Gabbard came to his support, calling opposition to Trump’s Strangelovian clambake of uniformed lumpen-intelligentsia nominees “discrimination against veterans,” and claiming that military people are “far more deeply personally committed to upholding and protecting our democracy than their critics.”

(...)

Gabbard has refused to support a ban on assault weapons. She has supported Trump’s anti-immigration initiatives. And her connections to her own father’s friends and staff — who were at the forefront of conservative campaigns against what she herself in 2004 called “homosexual extremists” (people who wanted to get married) — remain firmly in place. Google “Devon Bull.” And in 2014, she shielded the violent, right-wing, Islamophobic BJP in India from Congressional review.

(...)

Five of Gabbard’s nine biggest campaign contributors were major contributors to her father (a right-wing Republican who converted to right-wing Democrat, these conversions are a family tradition).

From the point of view of trustworthiness, she gets an F. On foreign policy, her Islamophobia, connections to the BJP, her disrespect for the civilian control of the military, and support of hard core Zionists loses. On judgement — let’s talk Syria trip — big F. On vulnerability during an election? Fuggetaboutit. She’s toast the minute an opponent goes for Swami Jagad Guru.

medium

Yup, a real "progressive".

This sort of backstory would disqualify anyone else for being insufficiently "progressive". Why does Warren get **** on and this woman gets a pass?

 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/25/2024 at 08:30:44