The Lifeboat News
[ Message Archive | The Lifeboat News ]

    How the fraud covered the first Democratic presidential debate Archived Message

    Posted by Raskolnikov on June 27, 2019, 7:37 am

    https://www.dumptheguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jun/27/democrats-began-sorting-wheat-from-chaff-beto-was-chaff

    Their piece was clearly a puff piece for Elizabeth Warren. Only she was deemed by the reporter to have said anything of substance or made any impact, except for this interesting mention way down in the piece:

    The biggest surprise of the night came from New York City mayor Bill de Blasio. Unpopular in his home city and laughably low in the polls, de Blasio seemed for much of the evening to be intent upon interrupting his fellow candidates and shouting above the sound of his own irrelevance. But he had one of the best sound bytes of the night with a message directed to the Trump-voting white working class, who he characterized as feeling betrayed by the American economy and left out of the American dream.

    “Immigrants didn’t do that to you,” de Blasio told them. “Corporations did that to you.”     It was the evening’s most effective detangling of the two issues that Trump has managed to merge in many voters’ minds: economic inequality and racism. The moment brought him briefly into contrast with the other low-polling white men, representatives Ryan and Delaney, who seem destined to be little more than embarrassing also-rans.

    Absolutely no comment about what he said just immediately mention Trump and then dismiss him as just another "low-polling white man". I doubt she would have used the same phrase with someone from the other side of the chessboard.

    Then she follows up with this ridiculous finish:

    It is hard to imagine Elizabeth Warren benefiting from de Blasio-style arrogance and aggression, but the debate featured disappointingly little of her passionate oratory. The moderators instead gave excessive attention to Beto O’Rourke, who seemed to have very little to say.

    At one point, Warren could be seen raising her hand, asking for permission to speak; meanwhile, the men on either side of her interrupted, raised their voices, and spoke considerably over their time.

    A majority of the other coverage I've read suggests that Warren was given more time to speak than the other candidates which might be why they felt they had to interrupt, rather than just being , you know, men.

    It is unclear whether viewers would have responded well to a more aggressive, interrupting Warren; women who speak over men are often punished for it. But the debate could have done with more time devoted to Warren’s policy agenda, which is sweeping, detailed, and ambitious. She should have talked more; she has the most to say.

    That's a ridiculous evidence free assertion to prop up her closing argument.

    On Tulsi Gabbard the report had one dismissive mention only along with a handy "Look, Look, she used to be a bit homophobic" smear:

    Hawaii representative Tulsi Gabbard managed to turn every question into an opportunity to remind viewers of her military service. This included a clumsy pivot in response to a pointed question about her former anti-gay stance.

    The Washington Post (spit) had this to say about her:

    Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (Hawaii) has the weirdest profile of any Democrat in the race: portraying herself as a progressive, but infamous for flattering Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and flip-flopping on gay rights and abortion. Candidly, she never had much of a chance. She insisted that the war in Afghanistan could end, winning the crowd but not fully explaining how we’d prevent terrorism from taking root. Her delivery was shaky, and at times she blatantly ignored the question posed.

    Which is about the kind of smear filled, fact-free character assassination you'd expect from that piece of shit.

    This is all very interesting though, because

    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/drudge-poll-shock-tulsi-gabbard-winning-first-democratic-debate

    A Drudge Report poll and a Washington Examiner poll both found Gabbard winning the debate by about the same margin. Admittedly these are both right-wing sites and so you could interpret this as flak intended to push the candidate the DNC wants least or some other meddling tactic, but it's in direct contrast to the sense of the night given by this fraudian report.

    Also:

    https://qz.com/1653913/tulsi-gabbard-was-a-surprise-breakout-in-first-democratic-debate/

    But two candidates seemed to pique a lot of interest among US voters, at least when judged by who Americans searched for on Google: New Jersey senator Cory Booker and Hawaii Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard.

    The graph in the link shows this interest in Tulsi quite clearly.

    So it seems the people like what they are no supposed to and need to be told not to. I expect much more of the same as this circus rolls on. I wonder how they will come down on tonight's Bernie v Biden clash? I dread to think.

    Message Thread: