The Race for the 2020 POTUS elections

VGThuy

Well-Known Member
Messages
29,948
A friend of mine told me Hillary was out polling Obama among African-American voters until Iowa threw a wrench at everything. When he won there a lot of people started thinking maybe they didn’t have to compromise their actual choice just to pick the candidate they felt had the safest chance of winning over moderates. I mean Biden can still win, but I don’t think his lead is insurmountable. It’s going to be a while and we’ll see what happens overall.
 

olympic

Well-Known Member
Messages
9,265
A lot of people were very angry in 2016 and wanted to throw a bomb at the government.

They succeeded. Now they've seen what happens when you throw a bomb at the government.
I do see a bright lining(s): HRC was a unique candidate who carried a lot of history and baggage. I don't see the 2020 candidates carrying as much baggage as HRC, although none of them are perfect.
 

Frau Muller

Everything is beautiful at the ballet!
Messages
11,491
I do see a bright lining(s): HRC was a unique candidate who carried a lot of history and baggage. I don't see the 2020 candidates carrying as much baggage as HRC, although none of them are perfect.
Kamala has the Willy Brown baggage and Warren has Pocahontas.

Tulsi Gabbard is as close to perfect as I can tell, among the Ds. I would seriously consider voting Democrat in 2020 if Tulsi were the nominee.
 
Last edited:

DORISPULASKI

Watching submarine races
Messages
11,581
I did not know you were homophobic
and very fond of Syrian president Assad.


Kamala has the Willy Brown baggage and Warren has Pocahontas.

Tulsi Gabbard is as close to perfect as I can tell, among the Ds. I would seriously consider voting Democrat in 2020 if Tulsi were the nominee.
 

Reuven

Official FSU Alte Kacher
Messages
15,508
I did not know you were homophobic
and very fond of Syrian president Assad.
And being pushed by right-wing trolls:
The internet far-right thinks Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard stole the show during Wednesday’s Democratic presidential debate.

High-profile right-wing and alt-right internet trolls like Jack Posobiec, fellow Pizzagater Mike Cernovich, and Infowars‘ Paul Joseph Watson praised Gabbard on Twitter for her performance alongside nine other candidates on the Miami stage.
 

olympic

Well-Known Member
Messages
9,265
Tulsi Gabbard actually ranks below Bernie Sanders on my list of preferred primary candidates, and that is saying a lot.

I peruse Twitter and I'm surprised to see that a recent video of hers garnered 1.1M views. Gut reaction is that there is truth to the reporting that her online presence is driven by Eastern European bots, and sadly it was reported that she made the cut for the next round of debates. Being Russia's preferred candidate alone should disqualify her
 

el henry

#WeAllWeGot #WeAllWeNeed
Messages
1,180
A friend of mine told me Hillary was out polling Obama among African-American voters until Iowa threw a wrench at everything. When he won there a lot of people started thinking maybe they didn’t have to compromise their actual choice just to pick the candidate they felt had the safest chance of winning over moderates. I mean Biden can still win, but I don’t think his lead is insurmountable. It’s going to be a while and we’ll see what happens overall.
I agree that polling now is next to useless for predicting actual winners. And the NYTimes recently had an article about Iowa’s outsize influence and what it might mean (negatively) for Uncle Joe. But I dart in every so often talking about Pennsylvania, and I just wanted to show it’s not just me and my backyard, it’s Pennsylvania:)

But if I vote for Biden, it won’t be because I’m compromising or I think we can do better but I’m abandoning some long held beliefs. It will be because I like Biden, I like what he stands for, and I think he’s the best candidate. Same with Mayor Pete. Same with Warren. They’re my top three right now. Come next spring, who knows:D

And I will hold my nose and vote for Bernie (my least fav) if he’s the candidate. I won’t just hold my nose, I’ll cheer and yell and put out a yard sign. For any Democrat. And every Democrat.

#VoteBlueNoMatterWho
 

VGThuy

Well-Known Member
Messages
29,948
I agree that polling now is next to useless for predicting actual winners. And the NYTimes recently had an article about Iowa’s outsize influence and what it might mean (negatively) for Uncle Joe. But I dart in every so often talking about Pennsylvania, and I just wanted to show it’s not just me and my backyard, it’s Pennsylvania:)

But if I vote for Biden, it won’t be because I’m compromising or I think we can do better but I’m abandoning some long held beliefs. It will be because I like Biden, I like what he stands for, and I think he’s the best candidate. Same with Mayor Pete. Same with Warren. They’re my top three right now. Come next spring, who knows:D

And I will hold my nose and vote for Bernie (my least fav) if he’s the candidate. I won’t just hold my nose, I’ll cheer and yell and put out a yard sign. For any Democrat. And every Democrat.

#VoteBlueNoMatterWho
You and me both. If Biden or anyone else I don’t fully support gets it, then I’m going to act like I always supported him like mad.
 

topaz

Well-Known Member
Messages
14,388
I have to weigh in here.

Lets not forget Tulsi was praised a rising star in the democratic party 4 years ago, until she resigned from the DNC as a vice chair and endorsed Bernie. Personally, I think she saw the atmosphere in the DNC at that time(Clinton campaign running the DNC) and was like I can't get with this. She saw the emails from DWS pushing to have a spy planted in the Sanders campaign so they could spy on him. Or the narrative to play up that he's Jewish and does not share the Christian beliefs of those in South. Since then she has been persona non grata to the Democratic party leaders.

The propaganda effort to link Tulsi Gabbard with Russian bots or government is completely far fetched and there is no evidence of this. Even though she sponsored and introduced Securing America’s Elections Act (H.R.1946). Our outdated voting infrastructure is extremely vulnerable to manipulation not only to outside countries but has been manipulated by republicans for decades is not being discussed/debated honestly.

Tulsi Gabbard and her campaign have been very transparent from where they receive their support and funds. She scares the shit out of the beltway and establishment because her foreign policy stance. She is a threat to to the military industrial complex and DC is not down with that. Republicans and Democrats. It's a narrative that establishment democrats are putting out through their corporate media connections. I find it really sick that mainstream media is trying to insinuate that she is a Russian spy or that she is compromised. In my opinion, they are questioning her honor and patriotism. She's is an active military officer. As a member of the House, she is a member of the executive branch and visit whomever she wants. Gabbard's visit has been common practice for house/senate members in the past.


She visited Syria, spoke to Rebels, she spoke to Syrian residents trying to survive. She was invited by Assad to meet with him while she was there. She was accompanied on the trip with Former Senator Dennis Kucinich. None of this mentioned though, interesting. Also, she stated that she wanted to full investigation on who was using the chemical weapons. She has stated that both sides have committed war crimes. Hence forth has stated publicly that Assad is a dictator.

From personal experience while being in the military, you have access to see/hear shit the public does not. I find it really sick that mainstream media is trying to insinuate that she is a Russian spy or that she is compromised. In my opinion, they are questioning her honor and patriotism. She's is an active military officer. She's is a member of the executive branch of government. She can visit whomever she want too without permission for Nancy Pelosi.

This narrative that the corporate media wants her to say "Assad is a monster" (even though she stated over the last few years that he is a dictator and no she's not his friend, nor has had any other contact with him)and if she does not answer the way they want, then she's an apologist. They want to frame the issue and if you are not compliant then you're labelled an apologist. I find incredibly hypocritical that mainstream media has created this narrative yet they are indifferent on others positions.

As recent as last year, media did this to Sanders regarding the Venezuela Coup attempt. She has stated Assad is a dictator publicly many times. It's the same narrative that folks in mainstream media evoked at those against the Iraq War, "“You love brutal dictators! You love Saddam Hussein! You’re not a real patriot! ". Saddam was cool with US government when they wanted regime change or to destabilize Iran. They're were very few complaining about Hussein's treatment of his people then. Hell, our government does not say shit about Saudi Arabia genocidal actions.

Also Assad is not a treat to the US Government. He is a treat to the US oil corporations.

Yet, folks did not care that we have Democratic "front runner" who's stated publicly that Mike Pence is a good guy. No one is questioning his judgement or support for LBGTQ rights.

Other than Mayor Pete none of the other candidates have been combat. She volunteered to join the military after 9/11. As an ARMY veteran I appreciate that she has had the attitude to serve her country. She's had to tell parents that their child has died in combat. She is like many soldiers(myself included and embedded reporters for that matter) who returned disillusioned from the Middle Eastern theater. We were betrayed and lied to with purposely erroneous intel. It was all a ruse so US defense and Oil Corporations could establish contracts. US Regime change policy is a ruse.

People supported and continue to support Obama and Clinton after their numerous regime change policies in Libya, Syria, Somalia, Yemen and Africa. No one questioned their patriotism. Yet, Obama and Clinton created the largest human trafficking situation in the world after the 'regime change' in Libya. It was a regime change war that was launched under the guise of national security, under the guise of humanitarianism.

Harris' campaign chose to smear and to reiterate that Tulsi is an " Assad Apologist" because she dropped truths Harris about her AG record. Rep Tim Ryan, Ohio stated via twitter and after the first debate the same thing because Gabbard corrected him on the difference between Al'Qaida and Taliban. An AG record that MANY black progressives have been WAITING for someone to bring up. The media definitely trying to hide her record. Two debates and no one had asked Harris details about her AG record. They hypocrisy is a "wow" moment. The fact that it took Tulsi to bring up[ Harris' record to the light because it was apparent NO ONE else was going to. Also, Harris never answered the question and has not answered the questions since. Her team is pounding the "Assad Apologist" narrative.

Folks still supporting Harris even though there is overwhelming evidence that she used California state prisoners as slaves to fight California wildfires. Yes, the use of prisoners(who have NO rights) to do labor is comparable to “slave labor.” She delayed folks being released from prison so she could have them fight wildfires as "fire fighters".

Back to Gabbard, folks who do not believe her or distrust her LBGTQ issues even though she had a "come to Jesus" moment is fair. Her LBGTQ record should be examined and discussed. I believe her when she stated "
“The contrast between our society and those in the Middle East made me realize that the difference — the reason those societies are so oppressive — is that they are essentially theocracies where the government and government leaders wield the power to both define and then enforce ‘morality. “I began to realize that the positions I had held previously regarding the issues of choice and gay marriage were rooted in the same premise held by those in power in the oppressive Middle East regimes I saw.”
Gabbard is specifically singled out but another candidate Harris are not. Harris position as AG regarding Trans prisoners having access to receive gender reassignment surgery is not being discussed. Even though Harris an excellent record of support LGBTQ rights (outside of few interesting decisions). Why hasn't the Norsworthy case been mentioned?

My point is certain candidates are taken to task from the mainstream media while other's are not. If we all want transparency from the candidates then we should expect that from ALL the candidates.
 
Last edited:

olympic

Well-Known Member
Messages
9,265
I have to weigh in here.

Lets not forget Tulsi was praised a rising star in the democratic party 4 years ago, until she resigned from the DNC as a vice chair and endorsed Bernie. Personally, I think she saw the atmosphere in the DNC at that time(Clinton campaign running the DNC) and was like I can't get with this. She saw the emails from DWS pushing to have a spy planted in the Sanders campaign so they could spy on him. Or the narrative to play up that he's Jewish and does not share the Christian beliefs of those in South. Since then she has been persona non grata to the Democratic party leaders.

The propaganda effort to link Tulsi Gabbard with Russian bots or government is completely far fetched and there is no evidence of this. Even though she sponsored and introduced Securing America’s Elections Act (H.R.1946). Our outdated voting infrastructure is extremely vulnerable to manipulation not only to outside countries but has been manipulated by republicans for decades is not being discussed/debated honestly.

Tulsi Gabbard and her campaign have been very transparent from where they receive their support and funds. She scares the shit out of the beltway and establishment because her foreign policy stance. She is a threat to to the military industrial complex and DC is not down with that. Republicans and Democrats. It's a narrative that establishment democrats are putting out through their corporate media connections. I find it really sick that mainstream media is trying to insinuate that she is a Russian spy or that she is compromised. In my opinion, they are questioning her honor and patriotism. She's is an active military officer. As a member of the House, she is a member of the executive branch and visit whomever she wants. Gabbard's visit has been common practice for house/senate members in the past.


She visited Syria, spoke to Rebels, she spoke to Syrian residents trying to survive. She was invited by Assad to meet with him while she was there. She was accompanied on the trip with Former Senator Dennis Kucinich. None of this mentioned though, interesting. Also, she stated that she wanted to full investigation on who was using the chemical weapons. She has stated that both sides have committed war crimes. Hence forth has stated publicly that Assad is a dictator.

From personal experience while being in the military, you have access to see/hear shit the public does not. I find it really sick that mainstream media is trying to insinuate that she is a Russian spy or that she is compromised. In my opinion, they are questioning her honor and patriotism. She's is an active military officer. She's is a member of the executive branch of government. She can visit whomever she want too without permission for Nancy Pelosi.

This narrative that the corporate media wants her to say "Assad is a monster" (even though she stated over the last few years that he is a dictator and no she's not his friend, nor has had any other contact with him)and if she does not answer the way they want, then she's an apologist. They want to frame the issue and if you are not compliant then you're labelled an apologist. I find incredibly hypocritical that mainstream media has created this narrative yet they are indifferent on others positions.

As recent as last year, media did this to Sanders regarding the Venezuela Coup attempt. She has stated Assad is a dictator publicly many times. It's the same narrative that folks in mainstream media evoked at those against the Iraq War, "“You love brutal dictators! You love Saddam Hussein! You’re not a real patriot! ". Saddam was cool with US government when they wanted regime change or to destabilize Iran. They're were very few complaining about Hussein's treatment of his people then. Hell, our government does not say shit about Saudi Arabia genocidal actions.

Also Assad is not a treat to the US Government. He is a treat to the US oil corporations.

Yet, folks did not care that we have Democratic "front runner" who's stated publicly that Mike Pence is a good guy. No one is questioning his judgement or support for LBGTQ rights.

Other than Mayor Pete none of the other candidates have been combat. She volunteered to join the military after 9/11. As an ARMY veteran I appreciate that she has had the attitude to serve her country. She's had to tell parents that their child has died in combat. She is like many soldiers(myself included and embedded reporters for that matter) who returned disillusioned from the Middle Eastern theater. We were betrayed and lied to with purposely erroneous intel. It was all a ruse so US defense and Oil Corporations could establish contracts. US Regime change policy is a ruse.

People supported and continue to support Obama and Clinton after their numerous regime change policies in Libya, Syria, Somalia, Yemen and Africa. No one questioned their patriotism. Yet, Obama and Clinton created the largest human trafficking situation in the world after the 'regime change' in Libya. It was a regime change war that was launched under the guise of national security, under the guise of humanitarianism.

Harris' campaign chose to smear and to reiterate that Tulsi is an " Assad Apologist" because she dropped truths Harris about her AG record. Rep Tim Ryan, Ohio stated via twitter and after the first debate the same thing because Gabbard corrected him on the difference between Al'Qaida and Taliban. An AG record that MANY black progressives have been WAITING for someone to bring up. The media definitely trying to hide her record. Two debates and no one had asked Harris details about her AG record. They hypocrisy is a "wow" moment. The fact that it took Tulsi to bring up[ Harris' record to the light because it was apparent NO ONE else was going to. Also, Harris never answered the question and has not answered the questions since. Her team is pounding the "Assad Apologist" narrative.

Folks still supporting Harris even though there is overwhelming evidence that she used California state prisoners as slaves to fight California wildfires. Yes, the use of prisoners(who have NO rights) to do labor is comparable to “slave labor.” She delayed folks being released from prison so she could have them fight wildfires as "fire fighters".

Back to Gabbard, folks who do not believe her or distrust her LBGTQ issues even though she had a "come to Jesus" moment is fair. Her LBGTQ record should be examined and discussed. I believe her when she stated "

Gabbard is specifically singled out but another candidate Harris are not. Harris position as AG regarding Trans prisoners having access to receive gender reassignment surgery is not being discussed. Even though Harris an excellent record of support LGBTQ rights (outside of few interesting decisions). Why hasn't the Norsworthy case been mentioned?

My point is certain candidates are taken to task from the mainstream media while other's are not. If we all want transparency from the candidates then we should expect that from ALL the candidates.
I studied Gabbard online and a few things caught my eye:

1. In March 2017, Gabbard was one of the few Democratic representatives to vote for the NRA-supported Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act, which would have essentially blocked the Department of Veterans Affairs from notifying the National Instant Criminal Background Check System that a veteran was mentally incompetent after determining they are unable to manage their own finances.

2. In 2015, she voted with Congressional Republicans in favor of a bill requiring "extreme vetting" of Syrian and Iraqi refugees, which would have effectively stopped the resettlement of Syrian refugees in the United States

3. In 2016, she voted against a GMO-labeling bill

4. Gabbard has stated the U.S. government should drop charges against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, saying his arrest poses a great threat to our freedom of the press and to our freedom of speech. Never mind that the guy hacked our election and helped give us Trump

5. In 2015, Gabbard met with authoritarian Egyptian president el-Sisi to discuss "the threat of ISIS and Islamic extremist groups", two years after he led the August 20, 2013 Rebaa Massacre, which killed hundreds of civilians.

6. She is vague on torture - Gabbard said she is "conflicted" about .... use of torture in interrogations, saying, "the jury is still out on the report". She also said that while she abhorred torture, were there an imminent danger to American citizens, as president she "would do everything in my power to keep the American people safe."

7. She was the 2nd Democrat to meet w/ Trump in Nov. 21, 2016 and found the exchange 'frank and positive'.

8. Gabbard refused to join 169 Democrats in opposing Steve Bannon's appointment as Trump's strategist.
 

ballettmaus

Well-Known Member
Messages
12,833
^I would add that she publicly said that Mueller had found no collusion and that everyone should move on after the Barr letter was released. (So, basically, she repeated GOP talking points).
 
Last edited:

topaz

Well-Known Member
Messages
14,388
Tulsi Gabbard actually ranks below Bernie Sanders on my list of preferred primary candidates, and that is saying a lot.

I peruse Twitter and I'm surprised to see that a recent video of hers garnered 1.1M views. Gut reaction is that there is truth to the reporting that her online presence is driven by Eastern European bots, and sadly it was reported that she made the cut for the next round of debates. Being Russia's preferred candidate alone should disqualify her
Really? There is absolutely no evidence of this. None. These are the supporters of Tulsi Gabbard - Jimmy Dore, Niko House, Kim Iversen, Tim Black, . These are not Russian Bots. The Russian Bot narrative has been used within the last year or so to discredit ANY unpopular views and campaigns. The folks I listed are not Russian Bots - they have well over millions of subscribers between them. And it is a narrative created by corporate media and several of their supporters.
 

Zemgirl

Well-Known Member
Messages
11,998
Really? There is absolutely no evidence of this. None. These are the supporters of Tulsi Gabbard - Jimmy Dore, Niko House, Kim Iversen, Tim Black, . These are not Russian Bots. The Russian Bot narrative has been used within the last year or so to discredit ANY unpopular views and campaigns. The folks I listed are not Russian Bots - they have well over millions of subscribers between them. And it is a narrative created by corporate media and several of their supporters.
There are also plenty of people who support Donald Trump. This does not mean that some his support is not, shall we say, artificially enhanced. It's also interesting that you'll downplay Russian interference, while giving credence to some kind of shadowy "corporate media" campaign. What is this eeeeevil corporate media?

Gabbard's conduct with respect to Syria is in itself disqualifying.
 

olympic

Well-Known Member
Messages
9,265
Here are some others:

1. Israel - Gabbard supports a strong U.S. - Israel relationship which in and of itself is not a bad thing. But, in March 2015, unlike other Democrats, she did not boycott Netanyahu's address to the U.S. Congress saying at the time that relations must rise above the political fray, as America continues to stand with Israel as her strongest ally. Some months after, Gabbard attended the Christians United for Israel (CUFI), a conservative leaning organization. In January 2017, Gabbard voted against a House resolution condemning the U.N. Security Council resolution on Israeli settlements built on the occupied Palestinian territories in the West Bank.

2. Syria - In March 2016, Gabbard was only one of three members of Congress to vote against House resolution 121, which condemned Syria and "other parties to the conflict" for war crimes and crimes against humanity. In April 2017, Gabbard expressed skepticism that evidence then available had shown that Assad ordered the use of chemical weapons against Syrian civilians
 

topaz

Well-Known Member
Messages
14,388
I studied Gabbard online and a few things caught my eye:

1. In March 2017, Gabbard was one of the few Democratic representatives to vote for the NRA-supported Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act, which would have essentially blocked the Department of Veterans Affairs from notifying the National Instant Criminal Background Check System that a veteran was mentally incompetent after determining they are unable to manage their own finances.

2. In 2015, she voted with Congressional Republicans in favor of a bill requiring "extreme vetting" of Syrian and Iraqi refugees, which would have effectively stopped the resettlement of Syrian refugees in the United States.
To my knowledge, Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson and White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough failed to answer simple questions about why they were opposed to the bill, which led Tulsi changing her mind. The main questions was what are the logistics of the vetting process and how will it be carried out. She and other democrats like Gerry Connolly stated they were told directly that "'We don't have the staff to do all this .'"

3. In 2016, she voted against a GMO-labeling bill
Because the bill was helped by the GMO industry. It did not allow for true transparency in food labellig. Which Tulsi has championed for years prior the bill. It main objective was the bill contained purposely confusing language, it did establish an uniform US standard labeling that is consistent with International laws and it lacked any kind of measure to enforce manufacturers accountability who are deceptive about their labelling.

4. Gabbard has stated the U.S. government should drop charges against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, saying his arrest poses a great threat to our freedom of the press and to our freedom of speech. Never mind that the guy hacked our election and helped give us Trump.
Julian Assange did not hack our election. Julian Assange is not a hacker. If you're referring to the email hack of the DNC and John Podesta emails; no evidence has emerged proving that the content of WikiLeaks documents and emails was doctored. Julian Assange is guilty of other things however, but he's not a hacker and to my knowledge none of the information Wikileaks has released has been stated to be fraudulent. Wikileaks published the largest leaks in the history of the CIA, State Department, Pentagon, the U.S. Democratic Party, and the government of Saudi Arabia.

Voter suppression and interference is not new to the American elections. Republicans have been doing it for decades. Also, the current conditions of the American public lead to Trump being elected. Oligarchy representation in government; people who are broken, depressed, struggling who were gullible enough to believe a con man; Angry Whites and in particular angry white men who are scared to death "their country is turning brown". Our male-dominated, 240-year run of the USA is coming to an end. MAGA is really Make America White Again. My point is there are multiple factors as to why the rise of Trump happened(why it was promoted on all cable news). Trump was elected because these things more than anything else. In fact, it's the reason why he will win the 2020 election.
5. In 2015, Gabbard met with authoritarian Egyptian president el-Sisi to discuss "the threat of ISIS and Islamic extremist groups", two years after he led the August 20, 2013 Rebaa Massacre, which killed hundreds of civilians.
Yep, she did just along with Rep. Dana Rohrabacher. Gabbard is a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. They first had meeting in Paris and then Rep. Tulsi Gabbard and Rep. Dana Rohrabacher first met with U.S. Embassy personnel and the U.S. Defense Attaché for a briefing on the current situation in Egypt and the Sinai, as well as an update on U.S. troops who are serving in the Sinai. They also met with Egypt’s Minister of Defense Sedki Sobhi, Rev. Andrea Zaki Stephanous, Ph.D., president of the Protestant Churches of Egypt, and other leaders of the Christian Coptic Church.
6. She is vague on torture - Gabbard said she is "conflicted" about .... use of torture in interrogations, saying, "the jury is still out on the report". She also said that while she abhorred torture, were there an imminent danger to American citizens, as president she "would do everything in my power to keep the American people safe."
I don't agree with torture in any sense, but her answer reflects that of current military officer and soldier. I am not aware of any active member of the US military or Intelligence agency that would state publicly anything else.
7. She was the 2nd Democrat to meet w/ Trump in Nov. 21, 2016 and found the exchange 'frank and positive'.
As other prominent democrats who has stated the same thing, "Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi and others".
It's a politically correct answer.
8. Gabbard refused to join 169 Democrats in opposing Steve Bannon's appointment as Trump's strategist.
Yes. In my personal opinion what is a public statement saying you oppose an adviser/strategist of a president going to do. Public statements go on the record but it does not change anything. Bannon himself has put the notion that he "really liked" Gabbard and Bernie Sanders. Yet, do we really believe a supporter of White Nationalisim "likes" a person of color and a person of color in a power position? Bannon is a master manipulator of the media. However, she has gone on the record many times stating that she opposes white nationalism. I have very hard time believing that a white nationalist(s) would truly support a person of color. I don't for one second believe Tulsi Gabbard is a supporter of white nationalism.
 

topaz

Well-Known Member
Messages
14,388
There are also plenty of people who support Donald Trump. This does not mean that some his support is not, shall we say, artificially enhanced. It's also interesting that you'll downplay Russian interference, while giving credence to some kind of shadowy "corporate media" campaign. What is this eeeeevil corporate media?

Gabbard's conduct with respect to Syria is in itself disqualifying.
I have never downplayed Russian influence on social media platforms.However, I have stated many times and given examples of corporate media's campaign to preserve the status quo and establishment. Look at many of the articles that corporate media promotes or does not promote. Opinion pieces that pose as investigative journalism. Corporate media has an agenda too, that is maintain status quo.
 

Zemgirl

Well-Known Member
Messages
11,998
I have never downplayed Russian influence on social media platforms.However, I have stated many times and given examples of corporate media's campaign to preserve the status quo and establishment. Look at many of the articles that corporate media promotes or does not promote. Opinion pieces that pose as investigative journalism. Corporate media has an agenda too, that is maintain status quo.
Again: who/what constitutes "corporate media"? What are some examples of the "many of the articles that corporate media promotes or does not promote"? What status quo is this corporate media trying to maintain?

There are journalists and editors who do not act in good faith, more so in some outlets and countries than others. But I don't buy that the entire profession is essentially in service to some conspiracy to keep truth from the masses.
 
Last edited:

Vagabond

Well-Known Member
Messages
13,701
Julian Assange is currently under indictment for hacking.

Dennis Kucinich has never been a Senator.

I would give Tulsi Gabbard some kind words for dismantling Kamala Harris's record.

That's all I have the time for for today. 🤷‍♂️
 

olympic

Well-Known Member
Messages
9,265
To my knowledge, Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson and White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough failed to answer simple questions about why they were opposed to the bill, which led Tulsi changing her mind. The main questions was what are the logistics of the vetting process and how will it be carried out. She and other democrats like Gerry Connolly stated they were told directly that "'We don't have the staff to do all this .'"



Because the bill was helped by the GMO industry. It did not allow for true transparency in food labellig. Which Tulsi has championed for years prior the bill. It main objective was the bill contained purposely confusing language, it did establish an uniform US standard labeling that is consistent with International laws and it lacked any kind of measure to enforce manufacturers accountability who are deceptive about their labelling.



Julian Assange did not hack our election. Julian Assange is not a hacker. If you're referring to the email hack of the DNC and John Podesta emails; no evidence has emerged proving that the content of WikiLeaks documents and emails was doctored. Julian Assange is guilty of other things however, but he's not a hacker and to my knowledge none of the information Wikileaks has released has been stated to be fraudulent. Wikileaks published the largest leaks in the history of the CIA, State Department, Pentagon, the U.S. Democratic Party, and the government of Saudi Arabia.

Voter suppression and interference is not new to the American elections. Republicans have been doing it for decades. Also, the current conditions of the American public lead to Trump being elected. Oligarchy representation in government; people who are broken, depressed, struggling who were gullible enough to believe a con man; Angry Whites and in particular angry white men who are scared to death "their country is turning brown". Our male-dominated, 240-year run of the USA is coming to an end. MAGA is really Make America White Again. My point is there are multiple factors as to why the rise of Trump happened(why it was promoted on all cable news). Trump was elected because these things more than anything else. In fact, it's the reason why he will win the 2020 election.


Yep, she did just along with Rep. Dana Rohrabacher. Gabbard is a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. They first had meeting in Paris and then Rep. Tulsi Gabbard and Rep. Dana Rohrabacher first met with U.S. Embassy personnel and the U.S. Defense Attaché for a briefing on the current situation in Egypt and the Sinai, as well as an update on U.S. troops who are serving in the Sinai. They also met with Egypt’s Minister of Defense Sedki Sobhi, Rev. Andrea Zaki Stephanous, Ph.D., president of the Protestant Churches of Egypt, and other leaders of the Christian Coptic Church.


I don't agree with torture in any sense, but her answer reflects that of current military officer and soldier. I am not aware of any active member of the US military or Intelligence agency that would state publicly anything else.

As other prominent democrats who has stated the same thing, "Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi and others".
It's a politically correct answer.
Yes. In my personal opinion what is a public statement saying you oppose an adviser/strategist of a president going to do. Public statements go on the record but it does not change anything. Bannon himself has put the notion that he "really liked" Gabbard and Bernie Sanders. Yet, do we really believe a supporter of White Nationalisim "likes" a person of color and a person of color in a power position? Bannon is a master manipulator of the media. However, she has gone on the record many times stating that she opposes white nationalism. I have very hard time believing that a white nationalist(s) would truly support a person of color. I don't for one second believe Tulsi Gabbard is a supporter of white nationalism.
Wow. I cannot get past your view on Assange and your minimization of his role in throwing the 2016 election. Oh, and let’s continue to remember he is a self aggrandizing creep who smeared feces on the walls of the Ecuadorian embassy during a temper tantrum, and who is / was accused of sexual misconduct in Sweden. A real hero of journalism!

Also you don’t defend her role in some of the events I pointed out like her refusal to step up against Bannon. You note that it doesn’t matter. Your other defense in her jumping in to meet Trump is ‘well other Democrats did it too’. Not strong enough to convince people that she is a great choice

And why is it so hard for her to call out Assad?

Another question that popped up in my head is she discusses regime change by Clinton and Obama and how it led to several world crises, but I didn’t find any criticisms by her of regime change by Bush in Iraq, which led to the birth of ISIL.
 

ballettmaus

Well-Known Member
Messages
12,833
Voter suppression and interference is not new to the American elections.
And that makes it okay that Russia is lending a hand on a much larger scale? :confused:


My point is there are multiple factors as to why the rise of Trump happened(why it was promoted on all cable news).
I don't think anyone is denying it. But don't underestimate the power of propaganda. I said so in another thread, but the Goebbels propaganda machine was able to convince the Germans that they were winning the war as late as 1944. They had the destruction all around them, their husbands and sons were getting slaughtered in Russia and they still believed it. That is how powerful propaganda can be. And no one is immune to it.


Wow. I cannot get past your view on Assange and your minimization of his role in throwing the 2016 election. Oh, and let’s continue to remember he is a self aggrandizing creep who smeared feces on the walls of the Ecuadorian embassy during a temper tantrum, and who is / was accused of sexual misconduct in Sweden. A real hero of journalism!
One of the arguments the government is making is that he is not a journalist. Journalists have also said that it is criminal to encourage a source to commit a criminal act in any way (which Assange is said to be guilty of as well).
I also find it reprehensible that the information that he released jeopardized the life of assets. I have no problem with whistleblowers but I'm sure you can publish information and still protect the life of others.
 
Last edited:

olympic

Well-Known Member
Messages
9,265
Yes
And that makes it okay that Russia lending a hand on a much larger scale? :confused:




I don't think anyone is denying it. But don't underestimate the power of propaganda. I said so in another thread, but the Goebbels propaganda machine was able to convince the Germans that they were winning the war as late as 1944. They had the destruction all around them, their husbands and sons were getting slaughtered in Russia and they still believed it. That is how powerful propaganda can be. And no one is immune to it.




One of the arguments the government is making is that he is not a journalist. Journalists have also said that it is criminal to encourage a source to commit a criminal act in any way (which Assange is said to be guilty of as well).
I also find it reprehensible that the information that he released jeopardized the life of assets. I have no problem with whistleblowers but I'm sure you can publish information and still protect the life of others.
I used the word journalist sarcastically because a few people consider him a crusading truth-teller deserving of protections that journalists receive
 

Susan1

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,601
Twitter accounts linked to Russians have given videos showing racism a boost, supposedly, to further sow division. https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/russia-linked-twitter-accounts-promoted-doxxing-over-racial-tension-videos-n1040596
I just saw some of this on MSNBC. (Rambling coming, I don't know how to say it..........) They showed some videos that were shared, like the woman who was bumped by a black kid in the store and she said he grabbed her? And the captions say things like "spread her shame" and "you know what to do" (share). I see them on FB on Occupy Democrats all the time. Aren't we supposed to "share" to spread the trump supporters shame? (I don't have anybody to "share" with that doesn't already read Occupy Democrats, so I don't.) So, how is this Russia helping trump, or causing MORE racial divide. It's right there, it's shameful, the racists look bad. It doesn't cause more racism. Deplorables (and bots) don't even comment on that particular thing, they just do the usual pro-trump thing that they do on every post. I'm not on Twitter.
 

Vash01

Fan of Yuzuru, Three A's, T&M, P&C
Messages
48,435
I agree that polling now is next to useless for predicting actual winners. And the NYTimes recently had an article about Iowa’s outsize influence and what it might mean (negatively) for Uncle Joe. But I dart in every so often talking about Pennsylvania, and I just wanted to show it’s not just me and my backyard, it’s Pennsylvania:)

But if I vote for Biden, it won’t be because I’m compromising or I think we can do better but I’m abandoning some long held beliefs. It will be because I like Biden, I like what he stands for, and I think he’s the best candidate. Same with Mayor Pete. Same with Warren. They’re my top three right now. Come next spring, who knows:D

And I will hold my nose and vote for Bernie (my least fav) if he’s the candidate. I won’t just hold my nose, I’ll cheer and yell and put out a yard sign. For any Democrat. And every Democrat.

#VoteBlueNoMatterWho
I too like Biden. For number 2, I like Steve Bullock. He is a centrist, like Biden, and governor of a very red state. I like Castro, but I don’t see him beating Trump. I like Warren a lot, but she is too left for my liking. So my number 3 is still open. If Bernie wins the nomination, I may have to vote for him simply because he is not Trump. I may throw up later. Same with Harris though my reaction may not be That bad.
 

topaz

Well-Known Member
Messages
14,388
And that makes it okay that Russia is lending a hand on a much larger scale? :confused:
I never suggested it was okay. I stated the influence of Russia in our elections was not major determining factor in 2016 nor in previous elections. IMO.

I believe voter suppression is much more influential when determining our elections more than anything. The US voting infrastructure is extremely vulnerable and has been for a long time. Very few ideas are being presented in House of Reps to insure voter suppression is eliminated. Also, I have only heard of a few bills introduced that look to reinforce accountability and the ability to audit elections. I only recall the HR. 1946 introduced by Tulsi Gabbard that address auditing and improving voting infrastructure and the H.R. 1 Anti Corruption bill released at the beginning of the year.
 
Last edited:

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 4, Guests: 2)

Top