Elections 2020 Democratic Primary Thread: The Announcements

[waiguoren]

Er, if they actually looked into her, they could find plenty of reasons to reject her as a serious candidate, starting with her very obvious and undeniable lack of anything like a presidential resume, continuing with her lack of personal integrity, and moving to her lack of intelligence. No one with a comparable resume would be taken seriously as a Democratic candidate. The right is deliberately trying to boost her as a candidate to help Trump.

Again, the two cases (Sam Harris and Bari Weiss) that I posted are clear examples of people abandoning critical thinking in favor of impressions gleaned from browsing MSM. That's an example of how the MSM influences people.

What's your issue with Tulsi Gabbard's resume? She is an Army veteran and has served in government at multiple levels including being elected 4x to the House. Her political experience is comparable to Barack Obama's, but she has military experience while he didn't.

What's the evidence for Gabbard's "lack of personal integrity" and "lack of intelligence"?

The right is deliberately trying to boost her as a candidate to help Trump.

Nice "CT". Which members of the so-called "right" are trying to boost her candidacy?

 

[waiguoren]

Do you think those people have influence on Democratic primary voters?

I do. Compared to the other Democratic voting blocs, I think the Sanders/Gabbard voting bloc tends to be much younger and far more likely to consume online media. On online platforms, Joe Rogan, Glenn Greenwald, Jimmy Dore, Kyle Kulinski (Secular Talk) and The Young Turks are very influential.

 

[Lead]

I wouldn't consider the last four to be "key" candidates, and it is disturbing that some actual key candidates are OK with this nonsense.

Yea, I actually was surprised there seems to almost be concensus with whoever is running in supporting this. I get AOC hs pull but you can support green policies and not back this one. Wondering how Brown, Biden, or some governors that may run would stand on it. I believe DeBlasio somewhat insulted it as not a serious attempt at policy and just a huge wishlist.

 

[Cake4Breakfast]

I think the fact that Brazile has also been shown to be pro-Clinton in the past makes her confession of an unfair Democratic Presidential candidate selection process, whereby Clinton was selected, even more damning.

Or she is someone who is a self serving social climber who isn't to be trusted, particularly in this instance where she doesn't acknowledge her own perfidy.

I supported Sanders over Clinton, btw.

 

[waiguoren]

OK, that was enough to look it up. The Times addressed the screeching from the left:

https://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes....-times-bernie-sanders-coverage-public-editor/

Mr. Sanders is suddenly promising not just a few stars here and there, but the moon and a good part of the sun, from free college tuition paid for with giant tax hikes to a huge increase in government health care, which has made even liberal Democrats skeptical.


Do you think that's a reasonable paragraph for the NY Times to publish?

 

[Jack V Savage]

RCP average will exceed 1.0%. Bet?

LOL! Doesn't sound like you actually believe your own bullshit if you're only willing to bet that she'll top 1%. Actually sounds like we agree on how influential the clowns you mentioned are.

1) editoral board are not unbiased and sometimes the higher-ups can influence them
2) journalists form a bloc of sorts and talk among each other, which biases them for and against certain candidates
3) MSM is mostly for-profit, so coordinated pressure to amend coverage tends to scare MSM into change

When you say the "editorial board" do you mean the actual editorial board (that writes the editorials) or something else? I see that you're retreating a bit. If you just mean that journalists don't think highly of Gabbard's chances, that's obviously correct, and they're right not to.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Again, the two cases (Sam Harris and Bari Weiss) that I posted are clear examples of people abandoning critical thinking in favor of impressions gleaned from browsing MSM. That's an example of how the MSM influences people.

Obviously there are real concerns that anyone who wants what is best for America will have. I'm sure there are casual consumers of the news who can't articulate their positions.

What's your issue with Tulsi Gabbard's resume? She is an Army veteran and has served in government at multiple levels including being elected 4x to the House. Her political experience is comparable to Barack Obama's, but she has military experience while he didn't.

What's the evidence for Gabbard's "lack of personal integrity" and "lack of intelligence"?

I addressed all of this in an earlier thread. I believe you're being disingenuous in even pretending to wonder what issue people would have with Gabbard's resume, which is obviously very far short of any major presidential candidate's in (at least) recent history.

Nice "CT". Which members of the so-called "right" are trying to boost her candidacy?

First names that jump to mind are Gowdy, Duke, Spencer, Putin, and Bannon. As you noted, Greenwald is another.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Yea, I actually was surprised there seems to almost be concensus with whoever is running in supporting this. I get AOC hs pull but you can support green policies and not back this one. Wondering how Brown, Biden, or some governors that may run would stand on it. I believe DeBlasio somewhat insulted it as not a serious attempt at policy and just a huge wishlist.

Not even a good wishlist (apart from a couple of items). Just a disaster. Better than Ryan's Path to Prosperity, but I think the standards are way higher on the left (and I'm good with that).

I do. Compared to the other Democratic voting blocs, I think the Sanders/Gabbard voting bloc tends to be much younger and far more likely to consume online media. On online platforms, Joe Rogan, Glenn Greenwald, Jimmy Dore, Kyle Kulinski (Secular Talk) and The Young Turks are very influential.

So what do you think Gabbard's peak polling number will be? You were only willing to bet that she's top 1%, which seems to indicate that you don't think those people are influential at all.

 

[waiguoren]

LOL! Doesn't sound like you actually believe your own bullshit if you're only willing to bet that she'll top 1%. Actually sounds like we agree on how influential the clowns you mentioned are.

You're so silly.

>1.0% means "greater than 1.0%". It's a conservative estimate given to maximize my chance of winning the bet. My best estimate is 4%. In a crowded field, that's pretty good.

What's your best estimate?

When you say the "editorial board" do you mean the actual editorial board (that writes the editorials) or something else?

I'm referring to the editors who decide which stories get placed where/for how long and how the most prominent stories will be headlined. Different outlets will use different titles for the people making these decisions. I was using "editorial board" as a stand-in.

I see that you're retreating a bit.

Not at all. What's your evidence for that?

If you just mean that journalists don't think highly of Gabbard's chances, that's obviously correct, and they're right not to.

That's not what I mean. I mean that the MSM coverage of Gabbard thus far has been biased against Gabbard.

 

[Prokofievian]

Lol, the dick tucker's back!

 

[JamesRussler]

A literal political prostitute.

It’s going to be funny watching these “muh progressive principles” types during the primary. KH is already locking up delegates and endorsements. They will be force-fed Kamala, just like they were force-fed Hillary. News flash, Bernie Bros: Kamala is a black woman; it’s her turn now. You’re gonna vote for her like told, capiche? Deal with it.

 

[waiguoren]

Obviously there are real concerns that anyone who wants what is best for America will have. I'm sure there are casual consumers of the news who can't articulate their positions.

Please try harder.


The two people I mentioned are professional commentators. They are paid to be experts on subjects on which they opine.

I addressed all of this in an earlier thread. I believe you're being disingenuous in even pretending to wonder what issue people would have with Gabbard's resume, which is obviously very far short of any major presidential candidate's in (at least) recent history.

I assure you, I am not.

First names that jump to mind are Gowdy, Duke, Spencer, Putin, and Bannon. As you noted, Greenwald is another.

This response just further illustrates the absurdity of your and Ben Shapiro's usage of the terms "the Left" and "the Right". You can always expand your definition to include more and more people to make your point. Amusingly, you take great offense when others do the same to argue against you. Example: if I were to assert that Joe Rogan or Glenn Greenwald were part of "the Left", then you would probably complain.

Further, what's your evidence that, say, David Duke is trying to "boost Gabbard's candidacy"? Duke has praised Gabbard for taking a firm stance against mideast intervention. He praises Sanders and Trump for the same thing. It's a huge stretch to say that he's trying to "boost Gabbard's candidacy".

Sloppy thinking on your part, again.

 

[Jack V Savage]

You're so silly.

>1.0% means "greater than 1.0%". It's a conservative estimate given to maximize my chance of winning the bet. My best estimate is 4%. In a crowded field, that's pretty good.

What's your best estimate?

Even 4% is low for someone who you claim is backed by a lot of different highly influential people. But I'll bet you that she doesn't hit that average in polls that include the candidates I previously noted as being the top six.

I'm referring to the editors who decide which stories get placed where/for how long and how the most prominent stories will be headlined. The title of the people making these decisions varies from outlet to outlet and is not important here. I was using "editorial board" as a stand-in.

So not the editorial board. More like the editorial staff? I highly doubt that higher-ups can influence them directly in a reputable paper (I think it's likely that any attempt if it didn't lead to mass resignations would have the opposite effect as intended). I don't think it would even be attempted at the NYT. Furthermore, I don't see why higher-ups would want to work *against* Gabbard. I'd think that if anything, they'd have an economic interest in helping her.

Not at all. What's your evidence for that?

That you said that they were deliberately trying to undermine her candidacy (which is a conspiracy theory that indicates that you're both stupid and ignorant of how the media works), and then shifted to just that they talk and share opinions, which is not as crazy.

That's not what I mean. I mean that the MSM coverage of Gabbard thus far has been biased against Gabbard.

In what way? I don't think most candidates with her credentials would have been covered as much or as favorably as she has been.

 

[Jack V Savage]

This response just further illustrates the absurdity of your and Ben Shapiro's usage of the terms "the Left" and "the Right". You can always expand your definition to include more and more people to make your point. Amusingly, you take great offense when others do the same to argue against you. Example: if I were to assert that Joe Rogan or Glenn Greenwald were part of "the Left", then you would probably complain.

So your view is that it's some unusual quirk of mine to describe right-wingers as being part of the right. This is more obvious disingenuousness on your part.

Further, what's your evidence that, say, David Duke is trying to "boost Gabbard's candidacy"? Duke has praised Gabbard for taking a firm stance against mideast intervention.

What does that even mean? She publicly attacked Obama for not bombing Syria. She's never taken a firm stance against Mideast intervention.

 

[Rematch]

I apologize for going off topic, but I have a bit of a nomenclature pet peeve. Why are members of the US Senate referred to as "senators", however, US House of Representatives referred to as "congressman" despite the fact that both the Senate and House of Representatives are BOTH branches of Congress? It's something that has irked me for well over two decades.

 

[xcvbn]

OK, that was enough to look it up. The Times addressed the screeching from the left:

https://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes....-times-bernie-sanders-coverage-public-editor/



Do you think those people have influence on Democratic primary voters? What is your expectation of Gabbard's peak polling performance?



It was. ???

Wall to wall coverage is an odd way to prove your absurd statement

 

[Jack V Savage]

Wall to wall coverage is an odd way to prove your absurd statement

Why? What was absurd about my statement? I think it's pretty much common knowledge.

 

[waiguoren]

Even 4% is low for someone who you claim is backed by a lot of different highly influential people. But I'll bet you that she doesn't hit that average in polls that include the candidates I previously noted as being the top six.

I think we're going to have a bet. However, I want to change the polling to something more concrete, like actual votes. I think Gabbard will outperform her polling.

I highly doubt that higher-ups can influence them directly in a reputable paper

Don't use weasel terms like "reputable paper". That really just means "papers that Jack Savage likes".

I don't see why higher-ups would want to work *against* Gabbard. I'd think that if anything, they'd have an economic interest in helping her.

Why?

That you said that they were deliberately trying to undermine her candidacy (which is a conspiracy theory that indicates that you're both stupid and ignorant of how the media works), and then shifted to just that they talk and share opinions, which is not as crazy.

Your addition of "deliberately trying" changes my original meaning. My view is that the writers and the editors don't like Gabbard and they form a type of echo chamber. This influences coverage of Gabbard in the negative direction. I never asserted that they meet in a dark back room and plot to kill candidates. I suspect a few corrupt people do this from time to time, of course.

In what way? I don't think most candidates with her credentials would have been covered as much or as favorably as she has been.

We could go one-by-one.

First:

NBC:

Russia's propaganda machine discovers 2020 Democratic candidate Tulsi Gabbard

Experts who track websites and social media linked to Russia have seen stirrings of a possible campaign of support for Hawaii Democrat Tulsi Gabbard.

=========

The article's evidence is flimsy at best, and the "experts" that the article refers to are:

1) New Knowledge, a company which the New York Times exposed less than two months ago for creating fake Russian troll accounts to try to convince people that the Kremlin was supporting Roy Moore in the Alabama Senate race. The CEO of the company was implicated.

2) A online researcher guy named Josh Russell who NBC decided to label a "troll hunter". Russell is not a professional social media analyst.

 

[xcvbn]

Yea, I actually was surprised there seems to almost be concensus with whoever is running in supporting this. I get AOC hs pull but you can support green policies and not back this one. Wondering how Brown, Biden, or some governors that may run would stand on it. I believe DeBlasio somewhat insulted it as not a serious attempt at policy and just a huge wishlist.

I'm a big supporter of AOC, Bernie, and progressives in general but this "Green New Deal" lacks proper planning and foresight. I'd even go as far as to agree with Mayor Profiler that it does indeed feel like a wishlist.

My biggest question mark is how we go 100% renewable without nuclear power. I mean we should strive for renewable energy adoption(I even like the ambitious 12 year plan- it would mean rapid mobilization of a work force and a massive boost to the ailing middle class) but that is impossible to do without nuclear energy.

Still the GND rhetoric is in the right place

 

[Rob Battisti]

Apparently when Harris said she smoked pot in college she was listening to Snoop and TuPac. She graduated college about 6 years before either dropped an album.

Either she was into underground hardcore rap or this is as pandering a moment as Killary always having hot sauce on her.