2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker - Part II

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Great Zaganza said:
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.
Click to expand...


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:

“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.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
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.
Click to expand...
The illustrious Kaitlin Johnston, citizen nutjob reporter, has been cited by CE frequently.
 
Childlike Empress said:
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:
Click to expand...

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".
 
Last edited:
^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".
 
Last edited:
Childlike Empress said:
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:
... 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...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

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.
 
WilliamSeger said:
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.
Click to expand...


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.
 
Childlike Empress said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I should go ask Assad what the real story is, like Gabbard did.
 
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.
 
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/2019/08/02/us/politics/2020-democratic-fundraising.html
 

Attachments

  • donormap.jpg
    donormap.jpg
    128.1 KB · Views: 10
Arcade22 said:
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".
Click to expand...

To say nothing of the very strong evidence for the Assad regime's use of nerve agents and other chemical weapons.
 
Delvo said:
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/2019/08/02/us/politics/2020-democratic-fundraising.html
Click to expand...
Is this because Sanders has a lot of small donors everywhere, but the other candidates have a few big donors on their "home turf"?
 
theprestige said:
Is this because Sanders has a lot of small donors everywhere, but the other candidates have a few big donors on their "home turf"?
Click to expand...


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.
 
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".

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom