If the national party didn’t stand up in favor of basic democracy then that alone is enough to damn them. What the fuck is a no-name candidate? They had fucking names. If you don’t know them then maybe you should be asking yourself how you could be so ill-informed.
And they met all the requirements set out by the party for ballot inclusion BTW. It wasn’t easy for them to get the signatures for ballot inclusion without access to the Democratic database of registered voters. The bylaws make that data available to all candidates for a hefty fee. The fee was paid, the data was withheld, and the party wouldn’t even refund the money. They pulled the same shit on the Sanders campaign in 2016.
Remember when Bloomberg wanted to enter the 2020 race late? He didn’t meet the requirements and had almost no popular support, so they changed the requirements. Of course they didn’t let the eliminated candidates back in based on the lower thresholds. How much more evidence of corruption do you need?
Back to the “nameless” candidates. Mainstream news media lives or dies based on their access to power. They also depend on the advertising revenue from running all those political adds. TV adds aren’t very impactful compared to similar spending on Internet adds, yet TV adds continue to get most of the money. That gives the DNC (and RNC) a whole lot of clout over what names the public hears. This isn’t a “conspiracy theory” BTW, it’s conspiracy fact. It’s been talked about incessantly by former anchors and executives, and was also a big part of what was revealed from the leaked (or hacked) DNC emails.
The fact that you don’t know what this very common phrase means suggests you’re either a foreign actor or you’re so politically uninformed that you shouldn’t be having opinions on things.
The fee was paid, the data was withheld, and the party wouldn’t even refund the money.
Gonna need a source for that one my friend. That’s a pretty extreme claim.
Remember when Bloomberg wanted to enter the 2020 race late? He didn’t meet the requirements and had almost no popular support, so they changed the requirements.
Again suggesting you’re a troll or agent. Only Republicans and Putin agents get so hung up on buttery males.
You’re making a bunch of outrageous claims about DNC corruption, but I’m not seeing any of it substantiated by a quick google search…except for things Trump has said.
Russian trolls are indeed a problem but this tendency of establishment liberals to throw around accusations whenever someone disagrees with them is a poor strategy to combat it. Their whole strategy revolves around sewing dysfunction in the body politic, and there is no better way to achieve it than to short circuit dialog this way. No, I am not a Russian troll but, if even if I were, calling me one just furthers their goals. This is a manifestation of one of the most critical failings of the liberal establishment in dealing with the Russian threat.
The fact that you don’t know what this very common phrase means suggests
I should have known better than to leave room for misinterpretation in a discussion with someone who longs to misinterpret. Imagine a discussion with a Republican where I responded to a comment on the boarder with the question “what the fuck is an illegal”? Would you assume that I don’t understand to whom they refer, or that I find the term misleading. Being “illegal” is an identity imposed by a broken system in the same way that being “no-name” is. The reason candidates have “no-name” is that they don’t get press, and they don’t get press because the neo-liberal consensus in mainstream media and both parties wants to keep them obscure. This goes back to the incestuous relationship between the elites in both parties and mainstream media.
Bloomberg missed the deadline to be on the New Hampshire ballot. As I said before, I am talking about candidates that met all of the requirements for ballot access, and were still denied. The rule changes I was referring to with Bloomberg were about access to the Democratic debates, not ballots.
No, I am not a Russian troll but, if even if I were, calling me one just furthers their goals. This is a manifestation of one of the most critical failings of the liberal establishment in dealing with the Russian threat.
The only way to combat Russian trolls is to not call them out? Come on, man, that was a more cogent string of words than the average provacateur but the reasoning behind it is still absolutely bonkers…unless you’re trying to help the trolls.
and they don’t get press because the neo-liberal consensus in mainstream media and both parties wants to keep them obscure
Conspiracy. Wake up, sheeple!
The rule changes I was referring to with Bloomberg were about access to the Democratic debates, not ballots.
Curious how you never specified that before lol
Much like you never specified that your claims of the DNC shenanigans were from Bermie’s run almost 10 years ago (and for context (which you also didn’t mention) was a disciplinary measure for Sanders staffers stealing data from Clinton).
The only way to combat Russian trolls is to not call them out?
That’s not what I said. Calling them out plays into their hands, but not doing so isn’t itself a strategy any more than not jumping on your opponent’s sword is a strategy. The actual strategy is to engage in good faith - even if you don’t think others do. Who knows, you might learn something.
Conspiracy. Wake up, sheeple!
Your reading comprehension needs practice. I said consensus, not conspiracy. Anyways, you know perfectly well that this exists between the RNC and Fox News, but it’s suddenly a “conspiracy theory” when it’s your guys. The press is supposed to be adversarial, but when did you last see a tough interview? It’s in small part a transactional thing, but it’s mostly just a culture perpetuating itself as cultures do. If you don’t realize this, your media literacy is adolescent at best.
Curious how you never specified that before lol
Curious how you keep using the word curious. What are you implying, and how is that not a distinction without a difference? It’s still the DNC changing the rules in midstream to favor a big donor.
Much like you never specified that your claims of the DNC shenanigans were from Bermie’s run almost 10 years ago
I referred to that instance earlier, so I provided that link. Did you think I was talking about Bernie’s 2024 run? That’s not a thing. I also provided links relevant to only the 2024 primary.
If the national party didn’t stand up in favor of basic democracy then that alone is enough to damn them. What the fuck is a no-name candidate? They had fucking names. If you don’t know them then maybe you should be asking yourself how you could be so ill-informed.
And they met all the requirements set out by the party for ballot inclusion BTW. It wasn’t easy for them to get the signatures for ballot inclusion without access to the Democratic database of registered voters. The bylaws make that data available to all candidates for a hefty fee. The fee was paid, the data was withheld, and the party wouldn’t even refund the money. They pulled the same shit on the Sanders campaign in 2016.
Remember when Bloomberg wanted to enter the 2020 race late? He didn’t meet the requirements and had almost no popular support, so they changed the requirements. Of course they didn’t let the eliminated candidates back in based on the lower thresholds. How much more evidence of corruption do you need?
Back to the “nameless” candidates. Mainstream news media lives or dies based on their access to power. They also depend on the advertising revenue from running all those political adds. TV adds aren’t very impactful compared to similar spending on Internet adds, yet TV adds continue to get most of the money. That gives the DNC (and RNC) a whole lot of clout over what names the public hears. This isn’t a “conspiracy theory” BTW, it’s conspiracy fact. It’s been talked about incessantly by former anchors and executives, and was also a big part of what was revealed from the leaked (or hacked) DNC emails.
The fact that you don’t know what this very common phrase means suggests you’re either a foreign actor or you’re so politically uninformed that you shouldn’t be having opinions on things.
Gonna need a source for that one my friend. That’s a pretty extreme claim.
Ditto. Source please. Not a word of this is mentioned on Wikipedia: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Bloomberg_2020_presidential_campaign
Bloomberg’s name didn’t even appear on the New Hampshire ballot. He intentionally skipped those primaries. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/08/us/politics/michael-bloomberg-president.html
Again suggesting you’re a troll or agent. Only Republicans and Putin agents get so hung up on buttery males.
You’re making a bunch of outrageous claims about DNC corruption, but I’m not seeing any of it substantiated by a quick google search…except for things Trump has said.
Curious.
Russian trolls are indeed a problem but this tendency of establishment liberals to throw around accusations whenever someone disagrees with them is a poor strategy to combat it. Their whole strategy revolves around sewing dysfunction in the body politic, and there is no better way to achieve it than to short circuit dialog this way. No, I am not a Russian troll but, if even if I were, calling me one just furthers their goals. This is a manifestation of one of the most critical failings of the liberal establishment in dealing with the Russian threat.
I should have known better than to leave room for misinterpretation in a discussion with someone who longs to misinterpret. Imagine a discussion with a Republican where I responded to a comment on the boarder with the question “what the fuck is an illegal”? Would you assume that I don’t understand to whom they refer, or that I find the term misleading. Being “illegal” is an identity imposed by a broken system in the same way that being “no-name” is. The reason candidates have “no-name” is that they don’t get press, and they don’t get press because the neo-liberal consensus in mainstream media and both parties wants to keep them obscure. This goes back to the incestuous relationship between the elites in both parties and mainstream media.
Bloomberg missed the deadline to be on the New Hampshire ballot. As I said before, I am talking about candidates that met all of the requirements for ballot access, and were still denied. The rule changes I was referring to with Bloomberg were about access to the Democratic debates, not ballots.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/01/31/nevada-debate-dnc-drops-donor-threshold-making-way-bloomberg/4624996002/
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/2015/12/18/bernie-sanders-campaign-disciplined-accessing-clinton-data/77539432/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0lcBidnb34
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXOtNJtjoow
The only way to combat Russian trolls is to not call them out? Come on, man, that was a more cogent string of words than the average provacateur but the reasoning behind it is still absolutely bonkers…unless you’re trying to help the trolls.
Conspiracy. Wake up, sheeple!
Curious how you never specified that before lol
Much like you never specified that your claims of the DNC shenanigans were from Bermie’s run almost 10 years ago (and for context (which you also didn’t mention) was a disciplinary measure for Sanders staffers stealing data from Clinton).
You are rapidly losing my trust.
That’s not what I said. Calling them out plays into their hands, but not doing so isn’t itself a strategy any more than not jumping on your opponent’s sword is a strategy. The actual strategy is to engage in good faith - even if you don’t think others do. Who knows, you might learn something.
Your reading comprehension needs practice. I said consensus, not conspiracy. Anyways, you know perfectly well that this exists between the RNC and Fox News, but it’s suddenly a “conspiracy theory” when it’s your guys. The press is supposed to be adversarial, but when did you last see a tough interview? It’s in small part a transactional thing, but it’s mostly just a culture perpetuating itself as cultures do. If you don’t realize this, your media literacy is adolescent at best.
Curious how you keep using the word curious. What are you implying, and how is that not a distinction without a difference? It’s still the DNC changing the rules in midstream to favor a big donor.
I referred to that instance earlier, so I provided that link. Did you think I was talking about Bernie’s 2024 run? That’s not a thing. I also provided links relevant to only the 2024 primary.
Uh, OK?
That didn’t happen.
And if it did, it wasn’t that bad.
And if it was, that’s not a big deal. <— you are here
And if it is, that’s not my fault.
And if it was, I didn’t mean it.
And if I did, you deserved it.