Donna Brazile's cheating in the debates to give Hillary Clinton an unfair advantage is, of course outrageous; however it hints at a corrupt system that is even worse and wouldn't work even if she hadn't cheated.
With all the discussion about how she leaked these questions, few have asked what the procedure is and who decides what questions get asked and what ones don't. However even though the media refuses to answer, or even ask many questions this has made it clear that the questions are being screened ahead of time; and even though they're asked by ordinary citizens the people controlling the debate get to censor them, while making it seem democratic by letting ordinary citizens ask questions of their choice.
This is not new; control of the debates was taken away from the League Of Women Voters who Refused to "Help Perpetrate a Fraud" in 1988 and handed over to the Commission on Presidential Debates sponsored by several powerful corporations including Anheuser-Busch Companies and International Bottled Water Association (IBWA) that have an interest in legislation that may not be in the public's best interests; however the public has no control over the rules of the debates and what questions can be asked, even though they try to make it seem as if they do.
They don't remind the public of the details often, if they mention them at all; however I remember in 2000 they said at the beginning of the debates that viewers will have questions in writing which they will ask when called on. If they're following the same procedure now they may ask viewers for these questions at least a day or two ahead of time, which is clear now that Donna Brazile was able to forward them; and the viewer would be allowed to ask the questions approved by the commission through a process that is not explained to the majority of the public.
Improvising and asking unauthorized questions is clearly not encouraged.
If they had any choice at all I doubt if they would ever allow the following exchange to take place:
Anderson Cooper: Thank you very much for being here. We’re going to begin with a question from one of the members in our town hall. Each of you will have two minutes to respond to this question. Secretary Clinton, you won the coin toss, so you’ll go first. Our first question comes from Patrice Stein. Patrice?
Patrice Stein: Thank you, and good evening. The first Amendment says "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press:" many of us were taught this was because the founders recognized that having a press controlled by a centralized authoritarian government like a King would prevent diverse views; and yet we now have over ninety percent of the national press controlled by six corporations that are able to rig coverage so that only the candidates they approve of can ever get the coverage or name recognition they need to have a chance to get elected to office.
This enables them to rig elections by only allowing
Anderson Cooper: Excuse me.
Patrice Stein: by only allowing candidates that they can count on not to break up their media monopoly to get coverage ensuring that they can continue controlling almost all the media presented to the majority of the public, often ignoring the best research on many subjects that might interfere with the profits of their interests and the interests of their advertisers.
Anderson Cooper: Ma'am
Patrice Stein: Will you do anything to change this and enable the best researchers to be heard and a much more diverse group of people to have equal rights to influence the press or to break up the media monopoly?
Anderson Cooper: Ma'am that's not the question you were supposed to ask.
Patrice Stein: OF COURSE NOT! In order to get past the censors I had to submit a meaningless question that seemed important to have any chance of getting called on!
Anderson Cooper: But
Patrice Stein: If we had reasonable opportunities by a diverse group of the public to ask questions I wouldn't have had to do that to ask a tough question that the censors wouldn't approve of.
Anderson Cooper: That's not true; and even if it was this isn't the time to make such an objection.
Patrice Stein: OF COURSE ITS TRUE! And if I made my objections when you said it was the right time to do so no doubt that you would find a way to avoid addressing them which is routine, although it never gets into the press which is controlled by six oligarchies!
Anderson Cooper: Ma'am the rules of this debate were negotiated with the two political parties and candidates and we don't have time to rehash them now; if you could just ask the question you agreed to ask.
Patrice Stein: How many members of the general public were consulted when the rules and censoring of these questions were decided on? None, except for those with connections with powerful corporations. And how many people voted not to allow alternative candidates that weren't under criminal investigation like both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump? How many members of the public voted to allow you to censor these debates and prevent the most important questions from being asked.
Anderson Cooper: Ma'am I'm sorry but I'm going to have to ask you to leave, security is here to escort you out.
Patrice Stein: We were taught this kind of thing only happens in the Soviet Union when I was a kid! In a real democracy they allow the majority of the public to hear from all candidates and be involved in the decision making process about which questions should be asked.
Anderson Cooper: CUT THE CAMERA! CUT! CUT!
Patrice Stein: Thank you, and good evening. The first Amendment says "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press:" many of us were taught this was because the founders recognized that having a press controlled by a centralized authoritarian government like a King would prevent diverse views; and yet we now have over ninety percent of the national press controlled by six corporations that are able to rig coverage so that only the candidates they approve of can ever get the coverage or name recognition they need to have a chance to get elected to office.
This enables them to rig elections by only allowing
Anderson Cooper: Excuse me.
Patrice Stein: by only allowing candidates that they can count on not to break up their media monopoly to get coverage ensuring that they can continue controlling almost all the media presented to the majority of the public, often ignoring the best research on many subjects that might interfere with the profits of their interests and the interests of their advertisers.
Anderson Cooper: Ma'am
Patrice Stein: Will you do anything to change this and enable the best researchers to be heard and a much more diverse group of people to have equal rights to influence the press or to break up the media monopoly?
Anderson Cooper: Ma'am that's not the question you were supposed to ask.
Patrice Stein: OF COURSE NOT! In order to get past the censors I had to submit a meaningless question that seemed important to have any chance of getting called on!
Anderson Cooper: But
Patrice Stein: If we had reasonable opportunities by a diverse group of the public to ask questions I wouldn't have had to do that to ask a tough question that the censors wouldn't approve of.
Anderson Cooper: That's not true; and even if it was this isn't the time to make such an objection.
Patrice Stein: OF COURSE ITS TRUE! And if I made my objections when you said it was the right time to do so no doubt that you would find a way to avoid addressing them which is routine, although it never gets into the press which is controlled by six oligarchies!
Anderson Cooper: Ma'am the rules of this debate were negotiated with the two political parties and candidates and we don't have time to rehash them now; if you could just ask the question you agreed to ask.
Patrice Stein: How many members of the general public were consulted when the rules and censoring of these questions were decided on? None, except for those with connections with powerful corporations. And how many people voted not to allow alternative candidates that weren't under criminal investigation like both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump? How many members of the public voted to allow you to censor these debates and prevent the most important questions from being asked.
Anderson Cooper: Ma'am I'm sorry but I'm going to have to ask you to leave, security is here to escort you out.
Patrice Stein: We were taught this kind of thing only happens in the Soviet Union when I was a kid! In a real democracy they allow the majority of the public to hear from all candidates and be involved in the decision making process about which questions should be asked.
Anderson Cooper: CUT THE CAMERA! CUT! CUT!
To the best of my knowledge they either managed to avoid having an exchange like this or they managed to keep it out of the press so that the majority of the public would never hear about it if it happened.
Is it possible that they have the Secret Service screen the participants attending the debates? If so could they consult with FBI files that might include records of people that have a history of participating in protests to ensure that someone likely to speak out like this wouldn't be allowed in? Even without answers to these questions, and more, video of the debates showing a large number of people attending them with political connections and celebrities clearly indicates that people with connections have a much better chance of getting in than the majority of the public.
This is just a fraction of the tactics they use to rig the coverage of the elections and it won't stop until we break up the media oligarchies controlling the coverage to ensure honest candidates can't get any coverage. The Constitution doesn't say anything about requiring candidates to collect enormous amounts of bribes thinly disguised as campaign contributions to get coverage from the media as a qualification for running for office. This is a tactic that the political establishment came up with on their own with help from the corrupt media, without consulting with the public; and even suppressing those that speak out about it when they figure out these things on their own.
One positive result from this election that is getting little attention so far is that Maine Passes Ranked-Choice Voting 11/09/2016 (More on Ranked choice below) which could be part of a much bigger reform movement if more people wake up. Additional efforts could include Election Reform and Saving Project Vote Smart and improving it or replacing it to enable the public to control the interview process.
The leaks about sharing the questions for the debates to benefit Hillary Clinton are just a fraction of the details that Wikileaks has exposed indicating that allowing them to continue controlling the election process won't even remotely resemble democracy.
Adding insult to injury some of the pundits, including Paul Krugman and Joy Reid that helped rig the primaries for the most corrupt candidate in history are trying to blame the real progressives for their corruption that enabled Trump to win. There should be no doubt that the reason he won is because they got behind an incredibly bad candidate and amazingly the Democrats even wanted an extreme candidate to make it easier for them to win, or so they thought.
 |  |
Paul Krugman's claim wouldn't even be true if we accepted the false assumption that somehow the two traditional parties are entitled to split the votes between them since Jill Stein's vote in Florida or other states wasn't even enough to swing the election. But further evidence that they wanted an extreme right wing "Pied Piper" candidate was also provided by Wikileaks:
[AGENDA & MEMO] Friday Strategy Call at 8:00 AM ET 04/23/2015 Pied Piper Candidates
This adds to some of the other stories leaked by Wikileaks indicating that they wanted and extreme candidate thinking that they could win easily; there were at least four or five more E-Mails backing this up and their efforts to schedule the primaries and give extra delegates to those that wait if they allow the most conservative states to go first confirms this.
On top of that the media provides much less coverage to many protests at Hillary Clinton rallies and many other locations from true progressives. One of the rare occasions where they did cover it, briefly, was in Iowa when Kaleb Vanfosson a Sanders supporter slams Clinton at her own rally 11/0/2016
For everyone that they do cover there are probably dozens if not hundreds more that they don't cover and you can only find them on alternative media outlets if they're reported at all, including a rally in Florida where there were suppressed protests against the North Dakota Access Pipeline as reported by a local activist supporting Jill Stein who reported about how they weren't allowed in with their signs and when they got them in any way they were blocked by Hillary Clinton supporters and escorted out by security. He managed to drop one of his signs while posing next to Florida Senate nominee Patrick Murphy in an attempt to get him to take a position on it. Hillary Clinton has previously put out a statement saying she respects the right of peaceful protesters to make their point about the pipeline but wouldn't go further than that and by taking donations from the energy companies and using her security to suppress protests at her rallies she demonstrated, not only that she supports the pipeline but that she doesn't respect the right to protest as her statement claims.
However she doesn't have to worry about the vast majority of the public knowing about this lie since the mainstream media refuses to report on it and only those that do a good job searching alternative media outlets will find out about it.
 |  |  |
Abandoning the true progressives she pretends to support is how she helped Trump win the Electoral College. There is no way he could have come close if the media wasn't rigging the primaries for such a corrupt candidate.
One of the questions directed to HRC tomorrow is from a woman with a rash 03/05/2016 Her family has lead poison and she will ask what, if anything, will Hillary do as president to help the ppl of Flint.
There should be no doubt that this election was definitely rigged; however it turns out it was rigged for the other disastrous candidate, instead of Hillary Clinton as the intended, assuming they didn't intend to rig it for Trump from the beginning which I consider unlikely but can't completely rule out with their insane behavior.
There's an enormous amount of evidence to indicate that if they didn't rig it against Bernie Sanders he could have won in a landslide.
The following are a sample of the other EMails leaked showing how the media coverage is rigged overwhelmingly:
Re: From time to time I get the questions in advance 03/12/2016 Betsaida - can you send her answer on death penalty?
Berman 04/26/2014 As we discussed in NY, keeping the red states early makes sense if she has a primary (as long as there isn't a primary competitor winning significant AA votes), but also increases the likelihood the Rs nominate someone extreme. .... We may need allies to help in this process but we're going to look at each state one step at a time, limiting as much as possible the perception of direct intervention by the principals.
Re: Friendly advice. No mercy. 02/22/2016 Podesta "I agree with that in principle. Where would you stick the knife in?" Joel Johnson "Obama betrayer (Wh will affirm). Hapless legislator (Senators/members will affirm). False promiser (policy elites will affirm). Can't win (black people will affirm)."
Clinton emails, edited final memo with amendments 03/07/2015 John, what I would suggest is this aggressive response, led not by the Clintons or their operatives but by respected Democratic supporters.....
Fwd: FYI: Rep. Schiff Responds to Report of Whistleblower on Benghazi Committee 10/10/2015 These people must be on Hillary's payroll. How many gifts can they possibly deliver to her in one week?
RE: Final memo 06/09/2015 Unless I hear otherwise, we’ll send to our friends and allies list at noon and Jesse will get it leaked to Dan Merica at CNN. We will then give it to anyone who asks.
Re: Preliminary thoughts on Today's Supreme Court decision 04/03/2014 Parties will be able to raise more federal funds. In the past, donors had to choose between the DNC, DSCC and DCCC (and similarly for their Republican counterparts), because the aggregate overall limit of $74,600 did not leave enough max-out room for three contributions of $32,400 each. Now donors can max out to each committee if they wish, as well as to as many of the state parties as they desire.
Re: Talking points for President Clinton and the Sheik 11/23/2011 I think they are hopeful if we do this it will help us get the $6 million. I think he should call. CHAI would like to request that President Clinton call Sheik Mohammed to thank him for offering his plane to the conference in Ethiopia and expressing regrets that President Clinton’s schedule does not permit him to attend the conference.
RE: WaPo - Draft Quote 02/25/2015 I'm concerned about saying we used money to fund healthy schools (because we didn't use the funding for that).
Re: Did you make it to RI? 11/21/2015 Jenifer Palmieri to Podesta She is in okay shape. Seizure was from HOH fever. Has a terrible infection caused by taking a high-powered antibiotic for a tooth infection that ended up killing good bacteria too and caused by infection. She is on lots of pain and not coherent but something ahe should be able to recover from.
Re: F.E.C. Can’t Curb 2016 Election Abuse, Commission Chief Says There is a stalemate among the agency’s six commissioners, who are perpetually locked in 3-to-3 ties along party lines because of a fundamental disagreement over the commission’s mandate. 05/03/2015 Use this to scare our people into giving bigger sums. We may need to get WJC into the mix sooner.
Simas update 01/02/2015 Robby Mook to Hillary Clinton He said that DWS will probably bring up at your meeting that they're thinking of hiring a general election planner and he said it would be helpful for you to reinforce that this is very important. He recommended demurring to on who the person should be, so you don't get caught up in those politics. --I asked that he make sure she has meetings scheduled with other potential candidates, so they can credibly say they're meeting with everyone.
Subject: Re: Wash Post story -- Sorry to write this on a Saturday night 02/22/2016 Podesta to Robby Mook I'm definitely for making an example of a suspected leaker whether or not we have any real basis for it.
Re: Domestic AIDS Memo 12/08/2011 we think that publicly pressuring the US and European AIDS drug companies to lower prices and bringing pressure to allow generic AIDS drugs into the United States will have limited if any success and could seriously jeopardize our negotiations to continually lower prices in poor countries. We have always told the drug companies that we would not pressure them and create a slippery slope where prices they negotiate with us for poor countries would inevitably lead to similar prices in rich countries.
Fwd: Personal 08/31/2015 I propose that the Secretary be on the Megyn Kelly File show for at least 30 minutes. I believe I can reduce the risks, since I know Megyn and Roger Ailes very well, by ensuring that the Secretary will have an opportunity to answer tough questions on emails and other issues without interruption.
Trump Questions for CNN 04/25/2016 Wolf Blitzer is interviewing Trump on Tues ahead of his foreign policy address on Wed. Please send me thoughts by 10:30 AM tomorrow.
Re: Pablo! 04/29/2016 Window closing on this. Need to know asap if we want to offer Jake Tapper questions to ask us.
Re: From time to time I get the questions in advance 03/12/2016 Yet many of these trade unions have locked out Blacks and other minorities for years. Will you call a meeting with them before November, and if you win, when you are president, to demand that the trade unions stop freezing Blacks and others from these good paying jobs?
Fair Vote: Ranked Choice Voting / Instant Runoff Ranked choice voting (RCV) makes democracy more fair and functional. It works in a variety of contexts. It is a simple change that can have a big impact. Benefits of Ranked Choice Voting:
City Council finalizes Ranked Choice Voting ballot question wording 08/15/2015 didn't pass in Duluth but did in Minneapolis in 2009 and St. Paul in 2011
Maine Passes Ranked-Choice Voting 11/0/2016 The voting style will apply to races for U.S. Senate, U.S. House, governor, state Senate and state House.
As a Republican, this is why I support ranked-choice voting 06/08/2016
The promise of a ‘true majority’ with ranked-choice voting doesn’t add up 06/26/2016 This article cites Portland and San Francisco as examples of problems with it; however the following two articles don't indicate problems in either; if anything, they portray them as successes.
San Francisco Successfully Uses Ranked Choice Voting for Citywide Elections, Nov. 2005
Wikipedia: Instant-runoff voting in the United States
No comments:
Post a Comment