Read on Twitter
@DNC’s 2020 primary election rigging is already a thing apparently. And someone has to collect a bunch of receipts as evidence.
Guys. It’s time for some game theory.
Guys. It’s time for some game theory.
There’s a popular idea among the wonks called agenda-setting theory. Basically it’s the idea that people will focus more on a given topic if it’s discussed in the media. In other words, if it isn’t discussed, people won’t pay attention. This idea is WRONG, but many believe it
@DNC people believe it. Proof: They regulated what was said at the #DemDebates by
A) only giving the candidates a minute to answer
B) limiting who was allowed on the debate stage
C) only asking very limited questions and worded them in a very specific way
A) only giving the candidates a minute to answer
B) limiting who was allowed on the debate stage
C) only asking very limited questions and worded them in a very specific way
Obviously it’s impossible to give a full answer to a question if you only have a minute, also if the questions are framed using right wing ideology. Candidates who don’t even debate on national tv won’t get their platform out, even if the public agrees with them.
Examples:
Examples:
They forced @MikeGravel out by first setting the bar so that candidates with less support wouldn’t make the stage. The rules were either poll at 1% in 3 Natl. polls the DNC approves of, OR get 65000 donors (with at least 200 in 20 different states). Gravel missed 1st #DemDebates
That’s all well and good because there’s a lot of candidates...BUT THEN...Gravel got enough donations to reach the threshold to qualify for #DemDebates 2 ...so DNC changes the rules. Now, Gravel has to meet BOTH the donor threshold and the polling rule when it was EITHER before.
But wait! Maybe they just wanted to narrow the field a bit. After all, there’s like 20 of them debating, right? Well what explains Ryan, Hickenlooper, Delaney, de Blasio, Bennet, and Bullock all getting in despite not having enough donors? Well, the DNC put more weight on polling
The question is; why even care about individual donors if you’re not even going to use them as a threshold for the debates? Why is poll numbers given more importance? Especially given that you could eliminate more candidates by excluding them by donor numbers.
The answer is they specifically wanted Gravel out by any means necessary, because they knew he would say things at the debate that moderates wouldn’t approve of. Gravel was a Bulworth candidate, a guy who knew he wasn’t going to win and had no problem saying his actual beliefs.
And the thing is, Gravel’s platform is easily the best platform of all the candidates. Yes even better than Sanders’s. Gravel would have made the other candidates, especially the right leaning ones, look indistinguishable from the republicans because the truth is, they are.
Do you wanna know the most obscene thing about the whole donors vs. polls thing? HIS NAME IS TOM FUCKING STEYER! This guy declared July 9th and already has enough individual donations... because he’s a billionaire who spent millions on collecting people’s emails and advertising
His 2 advocacy organizations were founded for the sole purpose of amassing Democrats emails and selling merch to them, like Impeach Trump bumper stickers, which by the way, count as individual donations. That’s how he got donors, by selling merch
@DNC then forced @TulsiGabbard out of the 3rd #DemDebates by only using “DNC approved polls”
Translation: they won’t use the Economist, Emerson, or Suffolk polls because those polls make her qualify and they don’t want Tulsi on stage
Translation: they won’t use the Economist, Emerson, or Suffolk polls because those polls make her qualify and they don’t want Tulsi on stage
Why would @DNC want @TulsiGabbard out? If you watched the debates it should be obvious. She harshly criticized the other candidates in both debates, Ryan and the other war hawks first and Harris second. DNC greatly prefers those candidates over Gabbard, especially Harris
@DNC doesn’t like it when you criticize the wars in the Middle East, because they’re pro-war. Which, by the way, has always been about controlling oil supply in the region because, of course, they’re pro-oil. They’ll tell you they care about the environment, but they’re pro-oil.
https://twitter.com/philosophrob/status/1166786722774114308?s=20
A lot of #Copmala fans celebrated when Tulsi didn’t make the cut, which goes to show their true colors. They hate democracy. They want war with the world. They support slavery but won’t admit it. They have no problem with cruelty if their faves do it.
A lot of #Copmala fans celebrated when Tulsi didn’t make the cut, which goes to show their true colors. They hate democracy. They want war with the world. They support slavery but won’t admit it. They have no problem with cruelty if their faves do it.
Incidentally they also hate it when you say factually accurate statements about capitalism’s inherent corruption and moneyed interests such as, “It’s all about the Benjamins baby” but that’s another can of worms worthy of its own thread.
But enough about who was allowed to debate, there’s also what they asked. The questions were all worded to either promote infighting among the candidates, which makes for good television and higher ratings, OR contain right wing framing and assumptions of the donor class
@NBC’s: “Voters don’t want change and the economy is amazing so why change it?”, “How will you stand up to China?”, “WiLl TaXeS gO uP?”, “How come your idea is unfeasible and won’t work ever?”, “Won’t this alternative route to #m4a that was designed to sabotage it be better?”
@CNN’s: “Is #M4A political suicide?”, “How would you pay for this platform that’s fully costed?”, “Would #M4A and #FreeCollege flood the country with the illegals?”, “What do you think about all these dumb socialists with unworkable ideas?”, “Why not nuke Iran and Korea?”
@ABC’s: “Taxes again?”, “Is Bernie yelling too much again?”, “Venezuela again?”, “Can’t we solve the climate crisis caused by 100 corporations by making everyone just be vegan? That’s not popular in Iowa and Texas
”
Also Bernie, don’t talk so much
And also burn @AOC’s face
”Also Bernie, don’t talk so much
And also burn @AOC’s face
These questions are designed to make those who support welfare programs look bad. They are framed from an elite, right wing, capitalist perspective using republican talking points and deliberately omitting relevant facts such as #m4a is a popular idea and we CAN have it in the US
Enough about the debates. Look at the way things are discussed in the news
https://twitter.com/jackallisonlol/status/1167090376282398720?s=21
Here’s an article about @washingtonpost and its “fact checkers” constantly grasping at straws in order to rate Sanders’s accurate and true claims as if they were false
https://twitter.com/jackallisonlol/status/1167090376282398720?s=21
Here’s an article about @washingtonpost and its “fact checkers” constantly grasping at straws in order to rate Sanders’s accurate and true claims as if they were false
https://twitter.com/oliverdarcy/status/1166106232115085312?s=21
Here’s @cnn senior reporter Oliver Darcy conflating left wing criticism of media conglomerates and a lack of workplace democracy at news companies with Donald Trump’s temper tantrums
Here’s @cnn senior reporter Oliver Darcy conflating left wing criticism of media conglomerates and a lack of workplace democracy at news companies with Donald Trump’s temper tantrums
We have @DNC establishment led by @TomPerez deciding to block a debate on climate change. And not releasing the names of the people who voted no until weeks later because they’re shameful cowards. Centrists don’t have the moral courage to take a stand for what’s just.
I ran out of room for more tweets on my phone, but the show must go on...
The climate debate thing is important because the media rightfully puts the blame on Perez, but they also broadcast his limp-ass excuses for blocking it without any scrutiny or questions about his motives
The climate debate thing is important because the media rightfully puts the blame on Perez, but they also broadcast his limp-ass excuses for blocking it without any scrutiny or questions about his motives
The reporting is all "oh how will this affect Inslee, the climate change candidate?" or "Won't this incentivize the candidates to take stronger positions on stopping climate change that will alienate voters in Pennsylvania or West Virginia?"
Literal DNC talking points
Literal DNC talking points
But wait. Why am I talking about the news? I thought this was a thread about DNC. Well, as it turns out, DNC and what you might call liberal news companies are in bed together. Not just the newspeople like and favor democrats, but the DNC is telling them what to say on air.
DNC chair @TomPerez is basically given 10 minutes to propagandize and cover his ass after his many fuck ups. And squeezes in fluff about how all the candidates are equally progressive. And this guy ran on being exactly as progressive as Keith Ellison.
I could post a flurry of examples here to show you that the DNC is actively subverting a free press in order to sabotage left wing ideas, but the biggest example I can give you is this: they did it in 2016. And you better believe that if they did it once than they'll do it again.
We know this because, well we can watch the news, and because of the DNC emails that were leaked by @wikileaks. I swear centrists never even bothered to read the damn things because their contents are quite damning. Here's former DNC CFO Brad Marshall...
http://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/11508
http://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/11508
...plotting to smear Bernie as an atheist.
"It might may no difference, but for KY and WVA can we get someone to ask his belief. Does he believe in a God. He had skated on saying he has a Jewish heritage. I think I read he is an atheist. (sic)" - Marshall on May 5, 2016
"It might may no difference, but for KY and WVA can we get someone to ask his belief. Does he believe in a God. He had skated on saying he has a Jewish heritage. I think I read he is an atheist. (sic)" - Marshall on May 5, 2016
"This could make several points difference with my peeps. My Southern Baptist peeps would draw a big difference between a Jew and an atheist... It's these Jesus thing. (sic)" - Marshall
"AMEN" - Dacey's response
Both of them resigned after this exchange was leaked to the public
"AMEN" - Dacey's response
Both of them resigned after this exchange was leaked to the public
Here's another example: @DWStweets was criticized by @MSNBC's @morningmika for obvious favoritism toward Clinton. DWS threatened to speak to her boss, MSNBC president Phil Griffin, and demand that she apologize for it.
http://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/13718
http://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/13718
What Mika said was, "This has been very poorly handled from the start. It's been unfair, and they haven't taken [Bernie] seriously, and it starts, quite frankly, with [DWS]...She should step down." These things are all TRUE. Reporting the TRUTH is what the news is SUPPOSED TO DO!
Joe Scarborough, a republican that MSNBC got on for some reason, said the DNC, "rigged the entire thing", and that he'd disavow the DNC if he was Bernie and go independent.
"This is the LAST straw. Please call Phil a Griffin. This is outrageous. She needs to apologize." - DWS
"This is the LAST straw. Please call Phil a Griffin. This is outrageous. She needs to apologize." - DWS
She then emailed @chucktodd with the subject line: Chuck, this must stop. She requested a call to discuss what's in the above tweets. This whole temper tantrum because a lady on tv criticized her for being an awful DNC chair, which is factually accurate.
http://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/13718
http://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/13718
DWS wasn't fired for her awful tenure as DNC chair, aggressively defending superdelegates, removing a ban on corporate donations, all those state governments that went reactionary on her watch. She was fired (pressured to resign by Obama but same difference) because of the emails
DNC's 2016 election rigging actually happened. It can't be denied or covered up or minimized. They demonized left wing ideas to scare people into accepting right wing ideas.
And these people think Russia had a bigger influence on the election? No, fuck you!
Read
theemails
And these people think Russia had a bigger influence on the election? No, fuck you!
Read
theemails
And this is before we get into the fact that Clinton's campaign actively helped Trump win the primary. aka election rigging
"We need to be elevating the Pied Piper candidates so that they are leaders of the pack and tell the press to them seriously. (sic)" http://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/1120
"We need to be elevating the Pied Piper candidates so that they are leaders of the pack and tell the press to them seriously. (sic)" http://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/1120
Another thing that actually happened, foreshadowing Clinton losing in 2016. https://twitter.com/kylekulinski/status/1175902785486905346?s=21
I’m continuing this thread indefinitely because of this shit https://twitter.com/memberbernie/status/1182352420753592321?s=21
https://twitter.com/momforprogress/status/1194352987629506560?s=21
@MomForProgress out here doing God’s work
@MomForProgress out here doing God’s work
