2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker - Part II

[Tero]

If this goes like the Hillary year, it will be https://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...ination_polls/
Biden and Sanders surviving to late spring. But this time around the Trump effect (the ones who forgot to vote 2016 finally show up) will lead to quite a fight, it will be close to 50/50 and may even end up decided at the convention.

[Arcade22]

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

Tulsi has just passed the 130K single donations she needs to continue to annoy the establishment clowns with her presence in the third round of debates. Aloha!

Thanks Putin!

[The Great Zaganza]

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

Tulsi has just passed the 130K single donations she needs to continue to annoy the establishment clowns with her presence in the third round of debates. Aloha!

Did she get it in Amazon Gift Cards?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Aridas

If you're going to push Cyber Wars, I may as well recommend Democracy in Chains by Nancy McLean. That one goes into quite a lot of historical detail about one of the major aspects of what's going on in the background on the right-wing, how such has developed, their actual goals, and a bit on their strategies - frequently invoking the words of the people themselves. Understanding the underlying issues is likely just as important, if not moreso, than understanding any particular one of the tools that are being employed to get to it.

While it sounds interesting and no doubt useful to understand those idiots following Trump (@kellyb: I'm not talking about winning hearts and minds of Trumpers) that's not what Cyber Wars reveals.

No, it describes in detail how Clinton was falsely demonized, how Trump's lies became heroic, how a massive social media campaign infected voters. Add to that, Trump TV, which Trump is still using to manipulate the media and it's not about winning over people based on ideas and plans, it's about snookering and brainwashing very much in a Hitleresque fashion.

Unfortunately the Kindle preview starts with the introduction that simply does not get the point across. I'll try to find a good passage to post that explains what I'm talking about.

[Arcade22]

From another thread this article was posted, which is quite informative as to why the Russian's would be cheer-leading for Tulsi:

Quote:

Experts in Russian on-line propaganda say Gabbard appeals to pro-Russian sites because her positions —and her appeal as an outsider in her own party — can be used to create division among Democrats.

Former FBI agent Clint Watts, author of "Messing with the Enemy: Surviving in a Social Media World of Hackers, Terrorists, Russians, and Fake News," said Gabbard has past or present positions on several issues that would be attractive to the Russian propaganda machine, and she is already popular with the U.S. "alt-left." Besides her views on Syria, she responded to reports of Russian interference in the 2016 election by saying the U.S. had interfered in foreign elections too.

The language used to laud Gabbard is reminiscent of Russian media promotion of Jill Stein, the U.S. Green Party candidate for president in 2012 and 2016. Stein received favorable coverage from the same outlets and also benefited from Russian troll accounts.

...

"We should expect the Russian intel services and troll farms to be active in the Democratic primary process," said Stamos, "as this provides them with the best opportunity to create the most division in American society in 2020."

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/202...abbard-n964261

Note here that Childlike Empress even explicitly stated that they hoped Tulsi would "annoy the establishment clowns with her presence", as that is what the Russian's seek to do. Unlike Trump i somehow doubt she will exceed everyone's wildest expectations by strongly appealing to white resentment.

[Childlike Empress]

[Delphic Oracle]

Originally Posted by Tero

If this goes like the Hillary year, it will be https://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...ination_polls/
Biden and Sanders surviving to late spring. But this time around the Trump effect (the ones who forgot to vote 2016 finally show up) will lead to quite a fight, it will be close to 50/50 and may even end up decided at the convention.

The rules changes and number of people running basically assure a brokered convention. Either they hash out who gets what position among themselves on ballot #1 or the superdelegates pick on ballot #2.

[Aridas]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

While it sounds interesting and no doubt useful to understand those idiots following Trump (@kellyb: I'm not talking about winning hearts and minds of Trumpers) that's not what Cyber Wars reveals.

No, it describes in detail how Clinton was falsely demonized, how Trump's lies became heroic, how a massive social media campaign infected voters. Add to that, Trump TV, which Trump is still using to manipulate the media and it's not about winning over people based on ideas and plans, it's about snookering and brainwashing very much in a Hitleresque fashion.

Unfortunately the Kindle preview starts with the introduction that simply does not get the point across. I'll try to find a good passage to post that explains what I'm talking about.

I got the Kindle version, I'll take a look. I'll be spending nearly a week away with family, starting in a few minutes, either way. With that said... based on your description here and before, it's focused on one aspect - the propaganda aspect. Democracy in Chains deals more with understanding the foundation and how that has evolved over time. In short, based on your description, Cyber War deals with what happening. Democracy in Chains gives much more insight on why it's happening. Russia was an external factor that fairly certainly tipped the scales. The scales were already precarious, though, because of powerful interests mucking with them in a sustained fashion for quite a while.

[Arcade22]

Incidentally, there's a new article up about Tulsi Gabbard on the NYT:

Quote:

On the far left, her supporters appreciate how she talks about respecting Native cultures. On the right, as liberal democracies see authoritarian strongmen rise, Ms. Gabbard’s allies like that she would not meddle with dictators.

The threat from Russia is severely exaggerated, Ms. Gabbard says. Do not beat the drums of war with Iran. Make nice with North Korea.

She flew to Syria in 2017 and had what seemed to be a friendly meeting with Bashar al-Assad, shocking her colleagues in Congress, and voted against a House resolution condemning the dictator’s war crimes. More recently, she said Mr. Assad was “not the enemy of the United States.”

Critics have called her actions un-American. After Ms. Gabbard tore into presidential candidate Kamala Harris for her prosecutorial record during the second Democratic debates on Wednesday, the California senator on CNN called Ms. Gabbard an “apologist for an individual, Assad, who has murdered the people of his country like cockroaches.”

To Ms. Gabbard, it is the United States that has been the cruel and destabilizing force.

“We should be coming to other leaders in other countries with respect, building a relationship based on cooperation rather than with, you know, a police baton,” she says.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/02/u...tial-race.html

She sounds a lot like Trump did in terms her isolationist and non-interventionist rhetoric, so it's not very hard too see why that would appeal to Russia.

[ArchSas]

Originally Posted by Arcade22

Incidentally, there's a new article up about Tulsi Gabbard on the NYT:



https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/02/u...tial-race.html

She sounds a lot like Trump did in terms her isolationist and non-interventionist rhetoric, so it's not very hard too see why that would appeal to Russia.

“Tulsi Gabbard by far is the very, very best,” former Republican congressman Ron Paul said in an interview with Russia Today.

“Go Tulsi!” the right-wing commentator Ann Coulter said on Twitter.

“Tulsi Gabbard’s my girl, I’m voting for her I decided, I like her,” the popular podcaster Joe Rogan said on his show.


Wow, that's so on-the-nose and corollary it's almost funny. Especially the Ron Paul quote in a Russian newspaper. For as much as the article shies away from pointing out her worst/most obvious flaws, at least it included that.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Aridas

I got the Kindle version, I'll take a look. I'll be spending nearly a week away with family, starting in a few minutes, either way. With that said... based on your description here and before, it's focused on one aspect - the propaganda aspect. Democracy in Chains deals more with understanding the foundation and how that has evolved over time. In short, based on your description, Cyber War deals with what happening. Democracy in Chains gives much more insight on why it's happening. Russia was an external factor that fairly certainly tipped the scales. The scales were already precarious, though, because of powerful interests mucking with them in a sustained fashion for quite a while.

I've put a library request in for Democracy in Chains. It is clear the pump needed to be primed for this kind of social media assault to have been successful. Part 2 of Cyber Wars describes "Troll prerequisites" which sounds like it converges with what you are referring to.

It's Part 3 where the tedious details begin. It's hard to read especially if you were a Clinton supporter.

[Childlike Empress]

Originally Posted by ArchSas

Wow, that's so on-the-nose and corollary it's almost funny. Especially the Ron Paul quote in a Russian newspaper. For as much as the article shies away from pointing out her worst/most obvious flaws, at least it included that.

So Joe Rogan is a Putin troll as well? Are there any people who endorse Tulsi for what she stands for, or is it all a conspiracy?

[Childlike Empress]

WaPo Publishes Gabbard Smear Piece Filled With Blatant Lies

[Tero]

Once we get to 2020, if we have Biden
-Abortion not a problem. Buy insurance for it.
If we have Warren or Sanders:
"We don't want medicare to pay for abortions!" scream all the Republicans.

[Trebuchet]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

And you think bad moderators trying to get the candidates to snip at each other wasn't a crappy show?

Jon Stewart would make an excellent debate moderator.

Better yet, he should run for President!

[The Great Zaganza]

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

WaPo Publishes Gabbard Smear Piece Filled With Blatant Lies

then she should have no trouble suing them, right?


It's not all Gabbard's fault that the Kremlin has decided to back her, but she not doing anything to address the fact that the Russian infowar machine is helping her, either.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

WaPo Publishes Gabbard Smear Piece Filled With Blatant Lies

Wow, that's some bizarre CT stuff there. Why would you believe this crap? I mean, I get it you're suspicious of the current US government. And the Syria conflict is not clear cut as to who are the goof guys.

But what is it in this report that makes you think this is truth?

Quote:

The Washington Post, which is wholly owned by a CIA contractor who is reportedly working to control the underlying infrastructure of the global economy, has published a shockingly deceitful smear piece about Democratic presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard in the wake of her criticisms of her opponent Kamala Harris’ prosecutorial record during the last Democratic debate.

The article’s author, Josh Rogin, has been a cheerleader for US regime change interventionism in Syria since the very beginning of the conflict in that nation. It is unsurprising, then, that he reacted with orgasmic exuberance when Harris retaliated against Gabbard’s devastating attack by smearing the Hawaii congresswoman as an “Assad apologist”, since Gabbard has been arguably the most consistent and high-profile critic of Rogin’s pet war agenda.

Because there's nothing here of any substance one could call evidence.

[Arcade22]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Wow, that's some bizarre CT stuff there. Why would you believe this crap? I mean, I get it you're suspicious of the current US government. And the Syria conflict is not clear cut as to who are the goof guys.

It might be related the fact that they only ever post Russian propaganda. Why would someone do that?

[Childlike Empress]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Because there's nothing here of any substance one could call evidence.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by theprestige

"Destruction"

There's lots of videos on Youtube with a title like "X DESTROYS Y!"

You can usually put a question mark in place of an exclamation point and apply Betteridge's law of headlines to it.

[Childlike Empress]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Because there's nothing here of any substance one could call evidence.

Especially funny as there are no less than five links in the little snippet you posted.

[Childlike Empress]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

It's not all Gabbard's fault that the Kremlin has decided to back her, but she not doing anything to address the fact that the Russian infowar machine is helping her, either.

This is something you completely made up based on disinformation by proven liars. Maybe you should read the article to understand to which grade these people are lying. First Rogin sentence treated by Johnstone:

Quote:

“Gabbard asserts that the United States (not Assad) is responsible for the death and destruction in Syria, that the Russian airstrikes on civilians are to be praised“

This is just a complete, brazen, whole-cloth lie from Rogin. If you click the hyperlink he alleges supports his claim that Gabbard asserts “Russian airstrikes on civilians are to be praised,” you come to a 2015 tweet by the congresswoman which reads, “Bad enough US has not been bombing al-Qaeda/al-Nusra in Syria. But it’s mind-boggling that we protest Russia’s bombing of these terrorists.”

Now, you can agree or disagree with Gabbard’s position that the US should be participating in airstrikes against al-Qaeda affiliates in Syria, but there’s no way you can possibly interpret her acceptance of Russia doing so to be anywhere remotely like “praise” for “airstrikes on civilians”. There is simply no way to represent the content of her tweet that way without knowingly lying about what you think it says. The only way Rogin’s claim could be anything resembling truthful would be if “al-Qaeda” and “civilians” meant the same thing. Obviously this is not the case, so Rogin can only be knowingly lying.

[varwoche]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Wow, that's some bizarre CT stuff there. Why would you believe this crap? I mean, I get it you're suspicious of the current US government. And the Syria conflict is not clear cut as to who are the goof guys.

But what is it in this report that makes you think this is truth?Because there's nothing here of any substance one could call evidence.

The illustrious Kaitlin Johnston, citizen nutjob reporter, has been cited by CE frequently.

[Arcade22]

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

This is something you completely made up based on disinformation by proven liars. Maybe you should read the article to understand to which grade these people are lying. First Rogin sentence treated by Johnstone:

Note that Russia publicly stated, and continues to state, that it has only ever been bombing "terrorists" in Syria when in reality it has more often than not been indiscriminately bombing urban areas under the control of rebel forces. The fact that Russian propaganda, so generously shared by Childlike Empress, continually smears the white helmets as a terrorist organization, is a great example of this.

Wittingly or unwittingly, trying to justify these airstrikes, which more often than not terror bombings against civilians, is tantamount to supporting Russia's and Syria's narrative that the only things they bombing and fighting are "terrorists".

[Childlike Empress]

^Note that this guy is so deep into his racist phobia that he thinks "Russia" states anything and calls people who he associates with his nightmare "Ivan".

[WilliamSeger]

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

This is something you completely made up based on disinformation by proven liars. Maybe you should read the article to understand to which grade these people are lying. First Rogin sentence treated by Johnstone:

Quote:

... The only way Rogin’s claim could be anything resembling truthful would be if “al-Qaeda” and “civilians” meant the same thing. Obviously this is not the case, so Rogin can only be knowingly lying...

No, "obviously" that's the point of contention -- that bombs dropped in residential neighborhoods do not discriminate who is al-Qaeda and who is not. "Obviously," Johnstone knows that and knows that civilians were being killed, so she "can only be knowingly lying" in a lame attempt to deny that's what's happening.

[Childlike Empress]

Originally Posted by WilliamSeger

No, "obviously" that's the point of contention -- that bombs dropped in residential neighborhoods do not discriminate who is al-Qaeda and who is not. "Obviously," Johnstone knows that and knows that civilians were being killed, so she "can only be knowingly lying" in a lame attempt to deny that's what's happening.

Your spin obviously fails. The point here is that the Washington Post pre$$titute claims that Tulsi praised attacks on civilians by Russia based on a tweet where she points out the lack of action against al-Qaeda terrorists by "the coalition" and refuses to demonize Russia for striking them. The terrorists. Not civilians. This lie is entirely the pre$$titute's fault, just like Caitlin writes, and of course you are smart enough to understand that without problems.

Your lacking understanding of the situation in Syria is an entirely different topic and I would recommend you check the status of Mosul and Raqqa (ruins) before you open your mouth about what your spin doctors have termed "collateral damage". Also Russia has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of this thread other than spin doctors blaming everything that doesn't fit into the status quo of your sick country (like Tulsi's anti-war stance) on an outside boogey man.

[WilliamSeger]

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

Your spin obviously fails. The point here is that the Washington Post pre$$titute claims that Tulsi praised attacks on civilians by Russia based on a tweet where she points out the lack of action against al-Qaeda terrorists by "the coalition" and refuses to demonize Russia for striking them. The terrorists. Not civilians. This lie is entirely the pre$$titute's fault, just like Caitlin writes, and of course you are smart enough to understand that without problems.

Your lacking understanding of the situation in Syria is an entirely different topic and I would recommend you check the status of Mosul and Raqqa (ruins) before you open your mouth about what your spin doctors have termed "collateral damage". Also Russia has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of this thread other than spin doctors blaming everything that doesn't fit into the status quo of your sick country (like Tulsi's anti-war stance) on an outside boogey man.

Yeah, I should go ask Assad what the real story is, like Gabbard did.

[Childlike Empress]

Mildly interesting numbers game in the New York Times about single donations of the candidates. One has to make it to the very end to recognize that the numbers are more than a month old (no, actually I just see there is a tiny grey remark up top which I missed the first time), but at that time Bernie had about three times the number of donations of creepy uncle Joe who came in just on 5th position.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

https://i.imgur.com/Nd3cGEd.jpg

Interestingly enough, that's also what you see.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

^Note that this guy is so deep into his racist phobia that he thinks "Russia" states anything and calls people who he associates with his nightmare "Ivan".

Russia is not a race.

[The Great Zaganza]

Originally Posted by Belz...

Russia is not a race.

Putin wishes it were so.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by Belz...

Russia is not a race.

If it’s not a race why are they Russian?

[Delvo]

The New York Times has published a map of which candidates have the most donors in which places. The top few candidates all have the most donors somewhere, but look at the distribution. The main non-Sanders ones roughly have a state apiece, and Sanders has all the rest, including a lot of "swing" or conventionally Republican territory.

At the link at the bottom of my post, there's an interactive version you can zoom in on and see the order of the top few candidates in each separate area. (I know the divisions aren't counties, so I suspect they're HoR districts.) There are some interesting patches of one color surrounded by another, particularly in the coastal states.

The Sanders effect is so overwhelming that, in the article (which I'm linking to below) they needed to produce a second map with Sanders excluded in order to show any more interesting structure to the situation than just "Sanders everywhere". The outcome that way is that most of Sanders's territory turns Warren's color but a substantial minority, distributed such that it's a majority in the Southeast, turns Biden's color. And there's another map where they're ranked by dollars instead of donors, and Biden's color randomly intrudes in scattered spots all around, making him the one with the widest difference between how many have donated and how much they've donated apiece. There are also insets for a few major cities and one small monochrome national map apiece for individual candidates near the bottom of the article.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...ndraising.html

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

If it’s not a race why are they Russian?

When you're Russian there's no time for Stalin!

[jimbob]

Originally Posted by Arcade22

Note that Russia publicly stated, and continues to state, that it has only ever been bombing "terrorists" in Syria when in reality it has more often than not been indiscriminately bombing urban areas under the control of rebel forces. The fact that Russian propaganda, so generously shared by Childlike Empress, continually smears the white helmets as a terrorist organization, is a great example of this.

Wittingly or unwittingly, trying to justify these airstrikes, which more often than not terror bombings against civilians, is tantamount to supporting Russia's and Syria's narrative that the only things they bombing and fighting are "terrorists".

To say nothing of the very strong evidence for the Assad regime's use of nerve agents and other chemical weapons.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Delvo

The New York Times has published a map of which candidates have the most donors in which places. The top few candidates all have the most donors somewhere, but look at the distribution. The main non-Sanders ones roughly have a state apiece, and Sanders has all the rest, including a lot of "swing" or conventionally Republican territory.

At the link at the bottom of my post, there's an interactive version you can zoom in on and see the order of the top few candidates in each separate area. (I know the divisions aren't counties, so I suspect they're HoR districts.) There are some interesting patches of one color surrounded by another, particularly in the coastal states.

The Sanders effect is so overwhelming that, in the article (which I'm linking to below) they needed to produce a second map with Sanders excluded in order to show any more interesting structure to the situation than just "Sanders everywhere". The outcome that way is that most of Sanders's territory turns Warren's color but a substantial minority, distributed such that it's a majority in the Southeast, turns Biden's color. And there's another map where they're ranked by dollars instead of donors, and Biden's color randomly intrudes in scattered spots all around, making him the one with the widest difference between how many have donated and how much they've donated apiece. There are also insets for a few major cities and one small monochrome national map apiece for individual candidates near the bottom of the article.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...ndraising.html

Is this because Sanders has a lot of small donors everywhere, but the other candidates have a few big donors on their "home turf"?

[Childlike Empress]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Is this because Sanders has a lot of small donors everywhere, but the other candidates have a few big donors on their "home turf"?

It goes in that direction. As I said when I introduced the article, Sanders had triple the number of Uncle Joe's individual donations at the end of June. But he had "only" a bit over 1.5 times Joe's amount of total $$$ donated.

[The_Animus]

Andrew Yang has qualified for the next Democratic "debates"

[The_Animus]

Bernie Sanders was on the Joe Rogan Experience podcast. Personally I feel this type of format is far more informative than the pathetic Democratic "debates".

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE