Agnostic.com

5 0

LINK Article: Tulsi Gabbard's Exclusion from Debate Stage is Further Proof that United States is Democracy Free | OpEdNews

"Hawaiian Congresswoman and Democratic Party presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard will not be speaking at the third Democratic primary debate in Texas on September 13th. According to the DNC's arbitrary rules, Gabbard failed to meet the two percent threshold in the number of polls required to qualify (4). She did, however, surpass the individual contribution requirement by over thirty thousand donors and received two percent or more of the vote in several "non-qualifying" polls, including from reputable sources such as The Boston Globe and The Economist. In other words, the debate process was rigged against Gabbard. Her exclusion from the debate stage only offers further proof that the United States is a nation free of democracy.

There have been no explanations coming from the DNC as to why the rules exist as they do in the first place. No democratic process is involved in deciding what qualifies as a "certified poll" and what doesn't. The DNC was pressured in the aftermath of the 2016 election to make reforms after it was exposed for its role in systematically cheating Bernie Sanders from any chance at the nomination. Clinton conduit Debbie Wasserman Shultz stepped down as DNC chair and the corporate Super Delegates who decide the nomination process were stripped of their ability to pledge their support for candidates months before the voting process began for delegates and voters. However, the super Delegates were neither removed completely from power nor was the DNC made any more democratic. Reforms to the DNC also included new loyalty oaths to the party and an open door for Super Delegates to vote in a contested convention.

The reason for Gabbard's exclusion from the debate is multifaceted yet simple. It is clear from the DNC's refusal to debate the issue of climate change that the Wall Street-owned party does not want to discuss war and foreign policy, either. The first two Democratic Party debates saw a total of nineteen minutes spent on foreign policy questions. Foreign policy makes up the majority of Gabbard's presidential campaign. Even though her political record is slightly more hawkish than Bernie Sanders, Gabbard spends far more time placing an end to U.S. regime change wars on the top of the political agenda. For this, Gabbard has been labeled a "dupe" of Russia and attacked at every turn by the Democratic Party establishment.

The exclusion of Gabbard from the third debate is another indicator that the United States' electoral process is hardly democratic. If the U.S. were a democracy, decisions about debates would not be determined by the whims of a largely anonymous DNC led by corporate-friendly political figures such as Tom Perez. A democratic election process would consider the needs and interests of the general population. That means climate change, which is a primary concern for Democratic Party voters, would be debated and discussed. It also means that the candidate who was most searched during both debates, Tulsi Gabbard, would be allowed to debate for a third time in front of a national audience."

WilliamCharles 8 Sep 3
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

5 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

1

It NEVER was a democracy . . . . .

2

With 20-something mostly unqualified presidential candidates, the DNC came up with some criteria to thin out the debate field based on various measures of support. Too bad your candidate didn't make the cut for participating in the debates, but nothing stops her from continuing her campaign. To see a vaster conspiracy here strikes me as absurd, the sort of nonsense that the Bernie Bros used to justify their decision to oppose Hillary and help give the presidency to Trump.

I reject most of your characterizations. I'm sticking with Bernie though.

Clinton lost 2016 on her own, against Team Hillary's own handpicked Pied Piper. She played chicken with the fate of the nation in her pursuit of power... and lost.

Dolt 45 is the giant shit sandwich that we're all having to take a bite from.

1

I think i saw her on the Joe Rogan podcast. She seemed alright.

2

I bet the majority of Democrats don't want Gabbard. I know I don't. She has ties that make me very nervous and will only get my vote if she somehow ends up in the general election--and I don't see that happening.

There's some candidates that are enough of a paradigm shift that I'll excuse some of their other positions I disagree with.

She rejected the corrupt DNC in 2016, has stated she'd pardon Snowden and Manning, as well as not try to extradite Assange, is against military imperialism, and masterfully called out Kamala Harris.

I'd love for her to be Bernie's VP, actually. Could make for a 16 year run of reasonably progressive Dems.

@WilliamCharles But, she has some ties to right wing nationalists in other countries. Her support of the far-right Indian leader Narendra Modi does not sit well with me.

@Joanne

Thanks for your input. This article certainly brings up some of the concerns you share. I still think the heavy-handed way the DNC controls the process is not a good thing, and that Tulsi's voice is worth hearing in the debates, but I feel that many of her positions here would have to change before I'd consider her for a spot on Bernie's ticket.

:-----:

"Tulsi Gabbard isn’t all bad. In several areas, she’s further to the left than a number of mainstream Democrats. But her bucking of the Democratic Party establishment, her support from Sanders, and her consistent opposition to regime change has distracted many from the more disquieting parts of her record.

If the glowing profiles of Gabbard are right, she stands poised to become one of the leaders of the Democratic Party. If so, progressives will have to drop any starry-eyed admiration, and take a good, hard, honest look at who Tulsi Gabbard really is.

Her rhetoric about Islam wouldn’t be out of place on a Republican debate stage. Her anti-interventionism is shot through with a pernicious nationalism. Her support for Modi legitimizes a leader with a record of enabling anti-Muslim brutality.

Sanders’s seal of approval shouldn’t be taken as the final word on Tulsi Gabbard. After all, should we really champion a presidential candidate who could easily have been slotted into a Trump cabinet?"

[jacobinmag.com]

2

It shows the depth of the corruption in the DNC, which by all intensive purpose is generally less corrupt than the RNC. Me thinks we need a viable third, or a fourth Party to make the two main ones have to justify their actions.

I would certainly love Ranked Choice Voting or Instant Runoff Voting.

[and FYI... it's "for all intents and purposes"]. I always appreciate it myself to get a useful correction, just so you know.

Not sure I would call the DNC less corrupt than the RNC, given that the DNC uses superdelegates. They are two wings from the same foul-ass fowl.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:397654
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.