[Peace-discuss] Fwd: [New post] Gabbard Says She’d Drop All Charges Against Assange And Snowden

[J.B. Nicholson]

Robert Naiman wrote:
> Whatever else we may disagree on, let's agree on trying to make sure that
> Tulsi Gabbard and Mike Gravel get on the Dem debate stage. Let's try to
> make sure that gazillions of Americans get to hear what they have to say
> about the Empire.

Again, whether anyone hears from Gabbard & Gravel on the DNC-run so-called 
debates is really up to the DNC not us. According to 
https://democrats.org/press/dnc-announces-details-for-the-first-two-presidential-primary-debates/ 
the DNC have capped the events at 20 candidates and the DNC says there's 
possibly polling involved to determine who will get one of the 20 spots. 
I'm skeptical of these polls given the DNC/RNC collusion in the 'Commission 
on Public Debates'-run so-called debates over many years, the high number 
of corporate media outlets running these polls, and one recent CNN poll 
which put Biden at #1 (39%) and Sanders at #2 (15%) among Democrats didn't 
ask enough people from age 18-49 to register a figure in their poll[1] (the 
columns for roughly half of the country showed up as "N/A"). That CNN poll 
claimed Gabbard came in with 2%. But the establishment doesn't have to 
worry because the New York Times reports[2] that Biden and Harris are among 
the candidates who are very likely to be invited to the DNC-run 'debates'. 
After what the DNC did in 2016, I think you'll have no problem finding 
people who will tell you that they don't trust the DNC (particularly if you 
ask people aged 18-49).

The DNC Corporation decides who speaks for that company regardless of 
whether they follow their own rules. If you want people to qualify for that 
job and be heard talking about American empire, talk to the DNC. That's a 
lot more actionable than anything you would have me try to accomplish. I 
refuse to take responsibility for the DNC's choices. Also, it's not my 
responsibility to help the DNC. Arguments along the line of 'viability' 
need not apply: those self-serving claims likely come from the same media 
that told us Hillary Clinton was a sure bet to be US President-elect in 
2016. Apparently Mrs. Clinton had just as much chance to win that job as 
the Green Party's Dr. Jill Stein despite their polar opposite politics.



[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d36QXSnSRgM and 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boG9BLs4V1g are among the shows talking 
about this.
[2] 
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/04/29/us/politics/democratic-primary-debates-2020.html