Somebody is triggered. She is working for them now. https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/donna-brazile-explains-why-she-is-working-for-fox-news https://www.foxnews.com/politics/donna-brazile-joe-biden-terrible-week
What she did was wrong. I won't defend anything she did. What we can do is examine the wrong she committed and look at the effects of what she did. Do you think the question she leaked to Clinton's team that a person was going to ask about the Flint water quality situation changed things and brought Hillary a debate victory or gave her a rise in poll numbers?
It was not the questions from the moderator that were given to Clinton. It was a question that had been submitted and was going to be asked by an audience member. It wasn't a slew of questions. It was a question about Flint's water quality issues. It is better to be accurate about what happened. https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2016/11/01/brazile-flint/93116772/ Let's also be clear that it was wrong of Donna Brazil to do that. Nothing excuses what she did. It was unfair and and problematic. But we should be accurate about what was done. Clinton was not given multiple questions that the moderator was going to ask. She didn't have a copy of them in front of her before the debate.
Lol doesn't matter at this point because everyone is rushing to tell me I am wrong after I just said who got the questions early. The hate is strong on this board.
Oh, I see. Brazille was a Fox News plant at CNN, who did her part in making Hillary look bad. It is all becoming clear now.
If you plan on playing a drinking game where you take a shot every time a candidate does not answer a question but instead launches into their elevator pitch every time they get to speak you will literally die.
"Will Any Democratic Debater Acknowledge Math?" excerpt: 1) Will any non-fringe candidate bring up math? Democrats love talking about being the "party of science" when it comes to climate change. (On genetically modified foods, not so much.) But what about arithmetic? In living memory, there was a prominent Democrat (a Clinton, no less!) who famously invoked the A-word when talking about Republican deficit-busting policies. Hillary's main critique of Bernie's various Medicare-for-all plans during the 2016 primaries was that "the numbers just don't add up." But are candidates even pretending to count anymore? The answer, perhaps surprisingly, is "yes," though that's mostly on the long-tail end of the polling spectrum. "The explosion of our national debt is a threat to our economic and national security," former Maryland congressman John Delaney (June national polling average: 0.4 percent) warned in February. When asked last month why she wasn't endorsing several of the more fanciful spending proposals in the 2020 field, Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D–Minn.) told CNBC: "I don't want to saddle this generation and the ones after it with even more debt." (Klobuchar's June polling average is 1.1 percent.) And former congressman Beto O'Rourke (polling average: 3.4 percent), who was a member of the comparatively fiscal hawkish New Democrat bloc in Congress, routinely complains in his stump rap that "we are $22 trillion in debt, and deficit spending to the tune of one trillion dollars annually added to that." Back in 2012, he even said, "We're running $1 trillion annual deficits and we cannot continue to spend ourselves into ruin. We need to elect people who are gonna go up there and make some tough choices." O'Rourke, Klobuchar, and Delaney share a stage tonight with Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren (12.2 percent), one day after the Congressional Budget Office projected that the national debt-to-GDP ratio will soon hit "unprecedented levels" despite the previous near-decade of economic growth. So, who will be the one to point out that Warren's fusillade of spending proposals can't possibly begin to add up? "Delaney will offer a clear distinction between candidates offering false promises and our campaign which is built on actual results," campaign manager John Davis told Bloomberg. "Warren and [Cory] Booker have both signed on to Senator Sanders' Medicare For All bill which would make private insurance illegal. We plan to have a discussion about that." Whether Klobuchar or O'Rourke feel brave enough to stand up for budget math will be a key early indicator of whether bothering to pay for stuff is still a live rhetorical issue in the Democratic Party. https://reason.com/2019/06/26/will-any-democratic-debater-acknowledge-math/
Tomorrow looks more interesting. Have a feeling that Kamala and Yang will look good in the debates while Biden drops. Dems are circling Biden for the kill.
I Just Want a Substantive Debate, Lie Thousands of Americans. https://www.google.com/amp/s/politi...ive-issues-oriented-democratic-1835835354/amp So true.
