Tulsi Gabbard: as Russian asset and Putin puppet, Jesus of Nazareth said about such people: "Blessed are the Peace Makers".
She is an amazingly courageous woman, kind of modern reincarnation of
Joan of Arc fighting with neocons for the independence of the country
instead of British (although British did invade the 2016 election ;-) She has no fear of Clintons mafia and neocon lobby.
Has concerns re the vagueness of the 'Green New Deal'
Reduce the New Cold War tensions
Rejoin the INF
Review FISA and Patriot Act infringements on the 4th
Support a $15 min/Living wage
Tulsi Gabbard (twit Feb 17, 2019)
Russia-baiting propaganda is being deployed against our campaign along with anyone else, on the left or the right, who
speaks out against regime change war or the new Cold War. The corporate media is doing everything they can to stop our campaign
before it gets started -- including using fraudulent journalism and discredited sources to launch their biased attacks.
Tulsi Gabbard
Joan of Arc (French: Jeanne d'Arc; French pronunciation: [ʒan daʁk]; c. 1412 – 30 May 1431), nicknamed "The
Maid of Orléans" (French: La Pucelle d'Orléans), is considered a heroine of France for her role during the Lancastrian phase of
the Hundred Years' War, and was canonized as a Roman Catholic saint. She was born to Jacques d'Arc and Isabelle Romée, a peasant
family, at Domrémy in north-east France. Joan claimed to have received visions of the Archangel Michael, Saint Margaret, and Saint
Catherine of Alexandria instructing her to support Charles VII and recover France from English domination late in the Hundred
Years' War. The uncrowned King Charles VII sent Joan to the siege of Orléans as part of a relief army. She gained prominence after
the siege was lifted only nine days later. Several additional swift victories led to Charles VII's coronation at Reims. This long-awaited
event boosted French morale and paved the way for the final French victory.
On 23 May 1430, she was captured at Compiègne by the Burgundian faction, a group of French nobles allied with the English. She
was later handed over to the English[6] and put on trial by the pro-English bishop Pierre Cauchon on a variety of charges.[7]
After Cauchon declared her guilty she was burned at the stake on 30 May 1431, dying at about nineteen years of age.[8]
Neoliberalism has vandalized the USA, and now it's time for backlash. Voting for the alternative candidate became an active
form of protest against neoliberalism. That's why Trump was
elected in 2016. The reason for this is that many people continue to live with the illusion that a simple change of elected leadership
in a Latin American country can bring a fundamental change for the region. I would argue that due to the power of intelligence
agencies demonstrated in 2016 and after in Russiagate witch hunt, this is not possible. Still you can fight even without hope,
and be stoic in case of defeat. This is the fight worth fighting.
The current neo-McCarthyism campaign make it very difficult fro any politicians to be anti-war. Neoliberal MSM became part of military-industrial
complex. Reaction of neoliberal MSM on withdrawal US troops from Syria (Trump is giving Christmas Present for Putin; Trump is
abandoning Israel, abandoning Kurds) was abruptly disgusting. So it need great personal courage to challenging the Washington
consensus.
MIC (neocons are just lobbyists of MIC) ruled the USA for more then 40 years and the main premise of neocon foreign policy is the USA have God provided mandate to rule
the global and prevent emergence of any rival who is able to challenge the US dominance like the USSR. In the process like any
empire they impoverish the USA population, lower the standard of living and committed numerous crimes. Since Carter any US president
would be convicted as a war criminal by Nuremberg court. Even Carter conspired to supply radical islamist for fight Soviets in
Afghanistan, giving them among other thing anti-aircraft missiles. Essentially creating political Islam, or at least
legitimizing and empowering it.
Defense apparatus became new class of imperial servant and they prevent any meaningful change as this engager their well being. This
is a systemic issue. It's kind of ironic that the person who attack this empirical establishment is a woman. In this sense
Tulsi
Gabbard is the US version of Jane of Ark who attacked British in France after a long period when French army did not
have any successes against them
As 2016 "re-awakening of the US" has shown people now reject neoliberalism and foreign wars for the maintenance and expansion of
the US-led neoliberal empire, fought by the US people on behave of multinational corporation, for the expansion of their markets (Say
Goodbye to Mitch McConnell’s America):
“American democracy has never accorded all the people a meaningful voice,” writes Nancy Isenberg in White Trash, her scathing
examination of ignored U.S. history. “The masses have been given symbols instead, and they are often empty symbols. Nation-states
traditionally rely on the fiction that a head of state can represent the body of the people and stand as their proxy; in the American
version, the president must appeal broadly to shared values that mask the existence of deep class divisions...
Mitch McConnell is a highly visible champion of that ideological deception, a deft practitioner of that stagecraft. The “essence
of America” he [ spoke of ] certainly exists, but cunning politicians of his ilk are too canny to mention it in public. That essence
— the belief that the nation and its population are a gilded platter to be gorged upon, a fertile field to be plundered and despoiled
for profit with the people serving as replaceable tools for the aristocracy — is McConnell’s birthright, and he defends
it with all the powers at his disposal, just as his colonial predecessors did.
...They want freedom for themselves, not for you. Their “freedom” is elite, expensive and jealously guarded.
Tulsi Gabbard does not yet has an elaborate economic or foreign policy program. But from tidbits that we know there is
a lot to like in her program, and first and foremost her consistent anti-war stance. She is the only candidate with clear anti-war position
in 2002 elections. that means that she automatically inherits antiwar republicans vote previously cast for Trump (who proved
to be another master of bait and switch like Obama, essentially a republican Obama; Venezuela is just the most recent example of this
betrayal).
Tulsi Gabbard is the only candidate with clear anti-war position in 2002 elections
While her platform will evolve as the race goes, you can already can get some tidbits from her twits and meetings. See
https://twitter.com
If elected, she promised to end the Cold War II, including huge money served by MIC. That will definitely invoke rage
from neocon, Clinton wing of Democratic Party, Israel lobby, and regular neoliberals.
She is against color revolutions and war for regime change. Quote: "If Assad is removed and overthrown, ISIS, al Qaeda,
Al Nusra, these Islamic extremist groups will walk straight in and take over all of Syria. – Tulsi Gabbard" and "It angers
and saddens me that President Trump has taken the advice of war hawks and escalated our illegal regime change war to overthrow the
Syrian government—this escalation is short-sighted and will lead to more dead civilians, more refugees, the strengthening of al-Qaeda
and other terrorists, and a direct confrontation between the United States and Russia—which could lead to nuclear war, this Administration
has acted recklessly without care or consideration of the dire consequences of the United States attack on Syria without waiting
for the collection of evidence from the scene of the chemical poisoning."
She understand what is involved in victory over ISIS: "There's one common element here, and it is this radical Islamic
ideology -- and in order to defeat it, we have to do so militarily, but also simultaneously, it has to be an ideological defeat as
well as a political solution that's offered."
She is against inflated spending on nuclear weapons and like Eisenhower believe that those money are stolen from American people.
Quote:
As commander-in-chief, I will work to end the new cold war, nuclear arms race and slide into nuclear war. That is why the neocon/neolib
warmongers will do anything to stop me.
She is against using US troops as mercenaries that open market for multinationals in foreign countries.
In previous presidential campaign Tulsi left her position of vice-chair of DNC to support Bernie Sanders. Just three prominent democrats
stand for Sanders. She did not endorsed neocon warmonger Hillary Clinton. Bernie Sanders and Liz Warred did endorsed
Hillary Clinton. That's an important different between Warren, Sanders and Tulsi. Sanders any longer can be trusted
because in previous election cycle he acted like sheepdog for Hillary. Warren is difficult to trust became he tend to be
"neocon light" on those issues.
Now progressive voters will be split three ways.Hopefully there will some mergers along the lines Tulsi/Bernie or Bernie/Tulsi.
She introduced several important bills, which makes her anti-war stance more credible. After bat and switch" candidates like Barack
Obama and Trump it is easy to became cynical and ignore elections. But currently I think that Tulsi is a real deal.
She was incredibly courteous to take on neocon lobby. This is almost a suicidal mission, and changes are the she will be quickly
destroyed. Both neoliberal and neocon MSM are actively trying to destroy her. Whether she will win or not, she is the most important
candidate in 2002 elections. The only candidate who can unite part of Republican, "real" Democrats and Independent. No other
democrat focuses on Foreign Policy like her!
At the same time, after the Obama regime’s coup in Ukraine, she supported supplying the illegitimate far-right putschists
(Provisional government of Yatsenuyk and Turchinov) with military assistance, shamefully saying America can’t stand “idly by while Russia continues to
degrade the territorial integrity of Ukraine.” Hopefully her position evolved in five years since 2014.
She’s against what she called “counterproductive wars of regime change,” including in Syria.
She earlier said targeting Bashar al-Assad for regime change was “a thinly veiled attempt to use the rationale of ‘humanitarianism’
as a justification to escalate our illegal, counterproductive war,” adding:
“Under US law, it is illegal for any American to provide money or assistance to al-Qaeda, ISIS or other terrorist groups.”
“If you or I gave money, weapons or support to al-Qaeda or ISIS, we would be thrown in jail. Yet the US government has been violating
this law for years, quietly supporting allies and partners of al-Qaeda, ISIL, Jabhat Fateh al Sham and other terrorist groups with
money, weapons, and intelligence support, in their fight to overthrow the Syrian government.”
“The CIA has also been funneling weapons and money through Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar and others who provide direct and indirect
support to groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda.”
She may be the only congressional member boldly stating the above remarks publicly to her credit.
In any case, her importance in oppositing "Permanent war for permanent peace" is well understood by some commenters on YouTube
"I am not someone who will go into the white house and sit back and rely on the foreign policy establishment in Washington
to tell me what to do, I don't have to. I'm not intimidated by the stars that someone wears on their shoulders. I am not intimidated
by the military industrial complex and what they're pushing for."
she literally could have just dropped the mic. I bet the aforementioned military industrial complex just peed themselves a
little. This is why MSM and DNC hate her. And why we all love her. I'm all in on
#Tulsi2020 .
Hello, Mrs. Gabbard excuse my English which is my third language. I respect you so much, I'm from Syrian, I live in SF you
are the only one who really stood up for the Syrian people by talking about the lies of the media toward my country, and also
by meeting with The Syrian President who is the legal representative of the Syrian people by election. You had the honor to visit
my country and saw the miserable situation caused by the war that was made and supported by the US; please if you become the president
end this war and end the suffer of the Syrian people
99 year Old Mother, WWII ARMY Nurse Corp Vet on the Comfort when it was hit by a kamikaze, "adores" you Tulsi. So moved when
watching the CNN Town Hall. You are her hero!
That why neocon bottomfeeders like Kristol come after her. Unlike this chickenhawk, Gabbard is an Iraq war veteran, which means
that she knows what it means to be in the military trenches. That's why Megan McCain came after her. As she said
“Too often we have found, throughout our country’s history, we have people in positions of power who make offhanded comments about
sending a few thousand troops here, fifty thousand there, a hundred thousand there, intervening militarily here, or starting a war
there—without seeming to understand or appreciate the cost of war. If our troops are sent to fight a war, it must be the last option.
Not the first.”
Gabbard was also indirectly attacking the Israeli regime, which arguably is a powerful lobbyist of the Pentagon and war machine:
“For
decades, Congress has ceded its Constitutional responsibility of deciding whether or not to declare war, to the President. As
a result, we have found ourselves in a state of perpetual war, without a declaration of war by Congress and without input from the
American people.
“Since 9/11 alone, our country has spent trillions of dollars on interventionist regime change wars, costing the lives of many
Americans, taking a toll on our veterans, and causing people in our communities to struggle and suffer due to a lack of resources.
“Our bipartisan resolution aims to end presidential wars, and hold Congress accountable so it does its job in making the serious
and costly decision about whether or not to send our nation’s sons and daughters to war…
“Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the exclusive authority to declare war. But the last time Congress officially
declared war was December 8th, 1941 – the day the US entered World War II.
“Ever since, Congress has failed to uphold their constitutional responsibility and have instead ceded power to the President.
So, we remain in a state of perpetual war, led by presidents in both parties at great cost to the American people with no declaration
of war by Congress and no input from the American people.
“The direct and indirect costs of these presidential wars are astounding. They take a toll on our troops, our veterans, and on
the American people.
“Since 9/11 alone, we’ve spent trillions of dollars on regime-change wars and nation-building while people in our communities
suffer and struggle because of a lack of resources here at home, what to mention the costs borne by our troops, those who pay the
ultimate price, as well as those who come home with wounds that are visible and invisible. The American people deserve accountability.”
Philip M. Giraldi who is a good political analyst whose judgments I mostly trust thinks that she is for real anti-war candidate who
wwill fight against neocon lobby; not yet another con-man like Bush, Obama and Trump proved to be (and that why she probably will
be burned at stake like Joan of Ark).
Here is his analysis:
Tulsi’s own military experience notwithstanding, she gives every indication of being honestly anti-war. In
the speech announcing her candidacy she pledged “focus on the issue of war and peace” to “end the regime-change
wars that have taken far too many lives and undermined our security by strengthening terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda.”
She referred to the danger posed by blundering into a possible nuclear war and indicated her dismay over what appears
to be a re-emergence of the Cold War.
Not afraid of challenging establishment politics,
she called for an end to the “illegal war to overthrow the Syrian government,” also observing that “the war
to overthrow Assad is counter-productive because it actually helps ISIS and other Islamic extremists achieve their
goal of overthrowing the Syrian government of Assad and taking control of all of Syria – which will simply increase
human suffering in the region, exacerbate the refugee crisis, and pose a greater threat to the world.” She then
backed up her words with action by secretly arranging for a personal trip to Damascus in 2017 to meet with President
Bashar al-Assad, saying it was important to meet adversaries “if you are serious about pursuing peace.” She made
her own assessment of the situation in Syria and now favors pulling US troops out of the country as well as ending
American interventions for “regime change” in the region.
In 2015, Gabbard supported President Barack Obama’s nuclear agreement with Iran and more recently has criticized
President Donald Trump’s withdrawal from the deal. Last May, she criticized Israel for shooting “unarmed protesters”
in Gaza, but one presumes that, like nearly all American politicians, she also has to make sure that she does not
have the Israel Lobby on her back. Gabbard has spoken at a conference of Christians United for Israel, which has
defended Israel’s settlement enterprise; has backed legislation that slashes funding to the Palestinians; and has
cultivated ties with Boteach as well as with major GOP donor casino magnate Sheldon Adelson. She also attended
the controversial address to Congress by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in March 2015, which many progressive
Democrats boycotted.
Nevertheless, Tulsi supported Bernie Sanders’ antiwar candidacy in 2016 and appears to be completely onboard
and fearless in promoting her antiwar sentiments. Yes, Americans have heard much of the same before, but Tulsi
Gabbard could well be the only genuine antiwar candidate that might truly be electable in the past fifty years.
What Tulsi Gabbard is accomplishing might be measured by the enemies that are already gathering and are out
to get her. Glenn Greenwald at The Interceptdescribes how NBC news published a
widely distributed story on February 1st, claiming that “experts who track websites and social media
linked to Russia have seen stirrings of a possible campaign of support for Hawaii Democrat Tulsi Gabbard.
But the expert cited by NBC turned out to be a firm New Knowledge,
which was exposed by no less than The New York Times for falsifying Russian troll accounts for the Democratic
Party in the Alabama Senate race to suggest that the Kremlin was interfering in that election. According to Greenwald,
the group ultimately behind
this attack on Gabbard is
The Alliance for Securing Democracy (ASD), which sponsors a tool called
Hamilton 68, a news “intelligence net checker” that claims to track Russian efforts to disseminate disinformation.
The ASD
website advises that “Securing Democracy is a Global Necessity.”
ASD was set up in 2017 by the usual neocon crowd with funding from The Atlanticist and anti-Russian German Marshall
Fund. It is
loaded with a full complement of Zionists and interventionists/globalists, to include Michael Chertoff, Michael
McFaul, Michael Morell, Kori Schake and Bill Kristol. It claims, innocently, to be a bipartisan transatlantic national
security advocacy group that seeks to identify and counter efforts by Russia to undermine democracies in the United
States and Europe but it is actually itself a major source of disinformation.
For the moment, Tulsi Gabbard seems to be the “real thing,” a genuine anti-war candidate who is determined to
run on that platform. It might just resonate with the majority of American who have grown tired of perpetual warfare
to “spread democracy” and other related frauds perpetrated by the band of oligarchs and traitors that run the United
States. We the people can always hope.
Support of Sanders in 2016
Gabbard’s record here is mixed at best. She formerly served as DNC
vice chair, resigning in February 2016 to support Russophobe undemocratic Dem Bernie Sanders over Hillary. Which was a corageous
act.
But after Hillary used dirty tricks in primary elections to steal the Dem nomination, Gabbard supported her candidacy. In
other words she suuported a political figure who was probably the most ruthless and militalistic presidential aspirant in US history.
The charaterization which can be backed up with cold, hard facts about her deplorable
record as first lady, US senator and secretary of state.
That's huge minus for Tulsi, but to survive in Washington you need to compromize your integrity.
Gore Vidal explained how the dirty system works, saying no one gets to be presidential material unless they’ve “been bought over
10 times.” The same goes for top congressional posts.
Gabbard is suspect for similar reasons, voting along party lines too often since elected to represent Hawaii’s 2nd congressional
district in November 2012.
She was born April 12, 1981 Leloaloa, American Samoa, the fourth of five children of Carol (Porter) and Mike Gabbard. Gabbard
would be the youngest US president ever if she wins; she'll be 39 on Inauguration Day 2021. In 1983, when Gabbard was two years old,
her family moved to Hawaii. Her father is a member of the Hawaii Senate. Her father is of Samoan and European ancestry
and an active lector at his Catholic church. Her mother, who was born in Decatur, Indiana, is of European descent and a practicing Hindu
( Hare Krishna sect I think).
Tulsi chose Hinduism as her religion while she was a teenager. I doubt that she is overly religious as she got the university education.
Gabbard was home-schooled through high school except for two years at a girls-only missionary academy in the Philippines. She graduated
from Hawaii Pacific University with a Bachelor of Science degree in Business Administration in 2009.
“We must stand up against powerful politicians from both parties who sit in their ivory towers thinking up new wars to
wage, new places for people to die, wasting trillions of our taxpayer dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives and undermining
our economy, our security, and destroying our middle class.”
Tulsi Gabbard is best know for he anti-war stance, which makes her an outlier among the majority (bought by MIC and Israeli lobby,
which is simultaneously is a MIC lobby) US Congressmen/women. Much like Ron Paul previously was
Tulsi Gabbard Kicks Off
Campaign With Anti-War Speech
Speaking from a beach in Waikiki, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard formally kicked off her campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination
with a speech cautioning that the United States is engaged in a “New Cold War,” telling a crowd of hundreds of supporters that every
American pays the price of unrestrained militarism and interventionist foreign policy.
Wearing a white lei, Gabbard, a four-term congresswoman from Hawaii, asked those assembled to help her build a movement emphasizing
“peace at home and abroad that will fulfill the promise of America.” Pointing to the Trump administration, which “claims to believe
in America First, but who sells our troops, our weapons and our interests to whichever foreign country is the highest bidder,” Gabbard
warned the crowd on Honolulu—many of whom were terrified by a
false nuclear alert
in Jan. 2018—that a nuclear war “could destroy our world in mere minutes.”
“Every American pays the price for these wars,” Gabbard, a longtime anti-interventionist, said, dismissing unspecified opponents
in Washington as treating troops like “political pawns and mercenaries for hire in wars across the world... thinking up new wars
to wage, and new places for people to die, wasting trillions of our taxpayer dollars.”
“I will bring this soldier’s values to the White House,” Gabbard vowed, closing her foreign policy-centric address with the promise
that she would bring the Hawaiian value of aloha to the White House.
Warren endorsed Hillary which makes her yet another neoliberal warmonger. Big no-no for many voters. She proved to be
a malleable coward. That means it does not matter what issue she supports during election campaign. She will be easily coursed
after election to continue traditional policies, especially foreign policy.
Tulsi Gabbard is courageous and stands up against her own party regardless of the political cost. Elizabeth Warren is a coward;
she never stands up against her party; she only fights the easy fights (GOP,Trump). Elizabeth Warren was a college professor she
knows the words the young kids want to listen and she says them often. Mark my words 'Elizabeth Warren in 2020 will be the Walter
Mondale of 1984'
Tulsi Gabbard. She supports Medicare for all and Elizabeth Warren does not. She's also really pushing the fake Russia story
all over MSNBC. Tulsi was the only one who didn't endorse Hillary.
Liz voted to get rid of Habeas Corpus and we're going to put her up for president now? Bernie and Liz will certainly maintain
the Democratic Party line on the Middle East.
Mike don't be naive. The Democratic Party has learned NOTHING! They'd definitely cheat a true progressive in 2020. Have you
seen ANY changes? Do you hear what their lawyers say about cheating Sanders on the record?
I'd take Tulsi Gabbard over Elizabeth Warren. Warren showed her true colors. Always too little too late and she doesn't do
it by mistake. Gabbard just does the right thing because it's right. I don't think Warren could beat Trump. He can poke way too
many holes in her.
what is interesting, the most vicious attacks against Gabbard do not come from “conservative” media outlets or journalists.
They came from neoliberal MSM and Clinton wing of Democratic Party. As one would expect those MSM
are pretty far from liberal ideas. They are hell-bent on neocolonialism and wars for enlarging and sustaining global, led by the USA
neoliberal empire. They just use a pseudo-liberal rhetoric to advocate for foreign wars. Those presstitutes know
who butters their bread, and they likes theirs bread buttered.
In spite of a smear campaign encouraged by the political establishment, Gabbard has not backed down from protesting US support for
terrorists in Syria. She sponsored legislation, the Stop Arming Terrorists Act (Tulsi
Gabbard, A Rare Anti-War Democrat, Will Run For President )
During an interview for the Sanders Institute in
September 2018, Gabbard said, "Since 2011, when the United States, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and these other countries started this slow
drawn-out regime change war in Syria, it is terrorist groups like al Qaida, al Nusra, and Hayat Tahrir al Sham, these different groups
that have morphed and taken on names but essentially are all linked to al Qaida or al Qaida themselves that have proven to be the
most effective ground force against the government in trying to overthrow the Syrian government."
Gabbard opposes what she calls a "genocidal war" in Yemen, and she is one of the few representatives, who has worked to pass a
war powers resolution in the House to end U.S. military involvement since Congress never authorized the war.
"The United States is standing shoulder to shoulder supporting Saudi Arabia in this war as they commit these atrocities against
Yemeni civilians," Gabbard said during the same Sanders Institute interview.
Another war Gabbard questions is the war in Libya. In an interview
for "The Jimmy Dore Show" on September 11, 2018, she spoke about the devastating consequences of pursuing regime change without considering
what would happen after Muammar Gaddafi was removed from power.
"After we led the war to topple Gaddafi, we have open human slave trading going on, in open market. In today's society,
we have more terrorists in Libya today than there ever were before."
In 2002, after redistricting, Gabbard (as Gabbard Tamayo) ran to represent the 42nd House District of the Hawaii House of Representatives.
She won the four-candidate Democratic primary getting 48%. Gabbard then defeated Republican Alfonso Jimenez in the general election,
65%–35%. At the age of 21, Gabbard had become the youngest legislator ever elected in Hawaii's history and the youngest woman ever elected
to a U.S. state legislature. She represented the Oahu 42nd District, which covers Waipahu, Honolulu, and Ewa Beach. She played
a key role, along with her Ewa colleagues, in securing funding for infrastructure on the Ewa Plains. In 2004, Gabbard filed for reelection,
but then volunteered for Army National Guard service in Iraq.
During her tenure Gabbard strongly supported legislation to promote clean energy. She supported legislation to expand tax credits
for solar and wind, improve the net energy metering program, establish renewable energy portfolio standards, reduce taxes on the sale
of ethanol and biofuels, provide funding for a seawater air conditioning project and make it easier for condo/townhouse owners to get
solar.
Regarding the environment, Gabbard supported legislation to better protect air quality, the water supply, endangered species and
avian/marine life, fight invasive species, reduce greenhouse gases, promote recycling of food waste and packaging, improve the Deposit
Beverage Container Program (bottle law), and reduce illegal dumping. Gabbard previously held socially conservative positions more in
line with her father, who sought for decades to pass laws against homosexuality, and who is against abortion rights. She shifted toward
a more liberal stance in the early 2010s.
After returning home from her second deployment to the Middle East in 2009, Gabbard ran for a seat on the Honolulu City Council.
Incumbent City Councilman Rod Tam, of the 6th district, decided to retire in order to run for Mayor of Honolulu. In the ten-candidate
nonpartisan open primary in September 2010, Gabbard finished first with 33% of the vote. In the November 2 runoff election, she defeated
Sesnita Moepono, 58%–42%, to win the seat. As a councilmember, Gabbard introduced a measure to help food truck vendors by loosening
parking restrictions. She also introduced Bill 54, a measure that authorized city workers to confiscate personal belongings stored on
public property with 24 hours' notice to its owner. After overcoming opposition from the ACLU and Occupy Hawai'i, Bill 54 passed and
became City Ordinance 1129.
In the first session of the 115th Congress on January 4, 2017, Gabbard introduced bill H.R. 258 to prohibit the use of
United States Government funds to provide assistance to Al Qaeda, Jabhat Fateh al-Sham, and the Islamic State of Iraq and the
Levant (ISIL) and to countries supporting those organizations directly or indirectly.
Gabbard won the general election on November 6, 2012, defeating Republican Kawika Crowley, by approximately 130,000 votes, or 168,503
to 40,707 votes (80.6%−19.4%). In December 2012, Gabbard applied to be considered for appointment to the Senate seat vacated by
the death of Daniel Inouye, but despite support from prominent mainland Democrats, she was not among the three candidates selected by
the Democratic Party of Hawaii.
Gabbard was reelected in 2014, 2016 and 2018. Gabbard is the first Samoan American member of the United States Congress and the first
Hindu member of the United States Congress.
In her first term, Gabbard introduced the Helping Heroes Fly Act, which passed unanimously in both the House and Senate. This measure
seeks to improve airport security screenings for severely wounded veterans, and was signed into law by the president. She also
led an effort to pass legislation to assist victims of military sexual trauma.
2015–16 Along with Senator Hirono, Gabbard introduced the Filipino Veterans of WWII Congressional Gold Medal Act of 2015 to award
Filipino and Filipino American veterans who fought in World War II the Congressional Gold Medal. The bill passed both the Senate and
the House, in July and November 2016, respectively, and was signed by President Obama on December 15, 2016. Gabbard also introduced
Talia's Law, to prevent child abuse and neglect on military bases. It passed the House and Senate and was signed by President Obama
on December 2017–18
In the first session of the 115th Congress on January 4, 2017, Gabbard introduced bill H.R. 258 to prohibit the use of United
States Government funds to provide assistance to Al Qaeda, Jabhat Fateh al-Sham, and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL)
and to countries supporting those organizations directly or indirectly. Announcing the legislation, she said:
"If you or I gave money, weapons or support to al-Qaeda or ISIS, we would be thrown in jail. Yet the US government has been
violating this law for years, quietly supporting allies and partners of al-Qaeda, ISIL ... and other terrorist groups with money,
weapons and intelligence support, in their fight to overthrow the Syrian government."
"... As has happened with epochal champions of generational transformation and change in U.S. history before her, Gabbard’s eclipse in Hawaii could lead to her comeback in a far more spectacular form. ..."
As has happened with epochal champions of generational transformation and change in U.S.
history before her, Gabbard’s eclipse in Hawaii could lead to her comeback
in a far more spectacular form.
Forget that old fraud Bernie Sanders; Tulsi Gabbard and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are the
best hopes progressives in United States now have for saving and renewing Democratic values and
a functioning political system. And watch Senator Ted Cruz to eventually unify a resurgent
nationalist Right.
In my 2015 book “
Cycles of Change †I predicted both the nationalist insurgency of Donald Trump
in the Republican Party and the progressive one unexpectedly spearheaded by Senator Bernie
Sanders in the Democratic Party that lastingly transformed U.S. politics in the 2016 election
cycle.
The Big Lie (of Josef Goebbels) proportions that Russia influenced or decided the shock
outcome of the 2016 presidential election in reality was cooked up by defeated Democratic
candidate Hillary Clinton â€" a bungling loser of historic proportions
â€" on the very same night she was still reeling from her rejection at the Javits
Center in Brooklyn after the results came out.
Since then, the old Republicans and Democratic Establishments alike have since eagerly clung
to the Big Lie because it offers them an excuse to deny and ignore what really happened: The
American people for once fitfully rose to express their ringing rejection â€" on
both sides of the political divide â€" of the ruinous policies of free trade,
globalization and ludicrous pretensions to World Empire to which they had been subjected for
the previous 70 years.
However, President Donald Trump was ruthlessly opposed, undermined, betrayed, slandered and
blocked on his honorable and responsible foreign policy and national security goals to restrain
NATO improve relations with Russia and pull U.S. combat forces out of both Iraq and Afghanistan
over the following four years and by the time of the next national election in 2024, he will be
78 â€" as old as Joe Biden is now. Undoubtedly the efforts to destroy and discredit
Trump will continue unabated from now until then.
Trump should not yet be ruled out by any means but he has already played the role of being
the Prophetic Precursor of the new and coming Political Age, as I pointed, out in
“Cycles of Change,†my overview of more than 200 years of U.S.
political history, published in 2015.
That “prophetic†pioneering role wa splayed by General John
Fremont in 1856 for Abraham Lincoln four years later; by New York Governor Al Smith, the
“Happy Warrior†in 1928 for the epochal election victory of
Franklin D. Roosevelt four years later; and by Senator Barry Goldwater in 1964 for the eventual
presidency and new political era of Ronald Reagan starting in 1980-81.
Who will be the coming leader of the conservative/nationalist Right in 21st century America?
The most likely candidate so far by far is Texas Senator Ted Cruz, who ran unsuccessfully
against Trump in 2016 before learning for himself the policies and priorities of the coming
Political Age.
On April 14, Cruz, renowned for having easily the most brilliant legal mind in the U.S.
Congress, eviscerated Kristen Clarke, President Biden’s nominee to head the
Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department when she appeared before the Senate Judiciary
Committee.
On the Democrats’ side, Independent Senator Bernie Sanders from Vermont
is now a twice-busted flush: Both in 2016 and 2020, the Democratic presidential nomination was
his for the asking: He in real terms decisively and humiliatingly exposed first Hillary Clinton
and then Joe Biden â€" both heirs of the worthless and despicable Bill Clinton and
Barack Obama administrations they served so energetically for so long.
However, on both occasions, Sanders froze up at the crucial moments of decision when the
nomination was twice stolen from him by vote manipulation (in 20216) and political chicanery
(in 2020) before his eyes. When it comes to the High Noon moment of any political showdown,
Sanders will always fold â€" just as he always has.
On the Democrats’ side, the contest for leadership superficial appears
more open, but two dynamic young women in reality easily lead the field.
Right now, New York Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, †AOC†,
who was supporting herself as a bartender before she won the Democratic nomination for her
district and then the congressional election in shock outcomes in 2018, is by far in the lead.
This is not even primarily because of AOC’s passionate advocacy of a Green
New Deal, which indeed makes absolutely no industrial or economic or financial sense the closer
one looks at it: It is because she is genuinely charismatic, genuinely aggressive and fearless
in her public appearances.
The more that America’s progressives â€" admittedly an
exceptionally slow-witted lot â€" wake up to the fact that Bernie Sanders will never
lead them to real power or victory in anything, the higher AOC’s star
rises.
She is already, at only age 31, the real leader of the Progressive Caucus in the Democratic
Party and she is half a century younger than 81-year-old Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.
Pelosi only won her precious House majority in November 2018. Yet already, she is watching
it vanish before her eyes.
Worse for Pelosi is sure to come: It is perfectly feasible that even before next
year’s congressional midterm elections, a handful of congressional special
elections could throw control of the House to current Republican Minority Leader Kevin
McCarthy, who loathes Pelosi and her ancient creaking clique of cronies with a never-burning
passion. Then, Pelosi’s fading clout will be totally gone and AOC with her
passion and a new generation of radicals riding the Winds of Change with her will take over
Democratic Party in Congress far earlier than any of the Old Fogeys on either side dreams.
AOC must therefore be seen as the frontrunner for the new age: But if she fails to measure
up and establish national credibility, the other most likely future presidential hopeful for
the Democrats is another forceful, beautiful and exceptionally intelligent young lady hardly
older than the New York congresswoman is: That is former Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard from
Hawaii, who was effectively squeezed out from her own congressional seat on the idyllic Pacific
island by the machinations of the old Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi gang of rotting old
politicos.
However, as has happened with epochal champions of generational transformation and change in
U.S. history before her, Gabbard’s eclipse in Hawaii could lead to her
comeback in a far more spectacular form.
She may move to California â€" a vastly superior political base to her home in
Hawaii for national U.S. politics. Also, her outstanding military record, highly unusual for a
young rising female Democrat of the current generation and her mastery of defense and national
security issues potentially gives her a far more potent and impressive credibility across the
American continent than AOC.
For Ocasio-Cortez’s appeal is like a laser beam: It is undoubtedly
powerful but also quite narrow, centered on the East and West Coasts and to a far lesser
degree, the much smaller progressive enclaves in major metropolitan areas across the
country.
Gabbard by contrast has the potential to reach deep into the Heartland. She was carefully
kept out of most of the nationally televised political debates for the 2020 presidential
nomination by her own party’s leaders. They were terrified of her.
However, Gabbard was an absolute knockout in the debates when she got a word in edgewise.
And she proved effortlessly able especially to demolish then-Senator and now-Vice President
Kamala Harris. That could prove of priceless importance to the national credibility of the
Progressive movement if, as appears likely Harris succeeds Biden into the White House in 2024,
or even sooner.
However, Gabbard has also shown the potential to move dramatically from one extreme of the
political chessboard to the other, much like a bishop moved a diagonal right across the
board:
In January 2021, she launched her own podcast called “This is Tulsi
Gabbard†and she has appeared a number of times on the conservative-leaning Fox
News Channel since she left Congress, focusing her outspoken attacks on Pelosi and House
Judiciary Committee Chair and leading Pelosi crony Congressman Adam Schiff. It is not
inconceivable to see her as an eventual running mate for the nationalist right on a Republican
ticket led by Senator Ted Cruz in 2024 or 2028. (In 2028, she will still be only 47).
Cruz and AOC are truly powerful potent emerging forces on the Right and Left of U.S.
politics. Gabbard has the intriguing potential to completely transform the picture on either
side. Between them, they offer hope that the new forces awakened by Trump and Sanders may
triumph yet.
While Joe Biden has faced some mild Congressional pushback for bombing the Iraq-Syria border, Tulsi Gabbard says her former
colleagues are ignoring the larger issue:
the ongoing US dirty war on Syria
.
After a decade of proxy warfare that empowered Al Qaeda and ISIS,
the US is now
occupying one-third of Syria and imposing crippling sanctions
that are crushing Syria's economy and preventing
reconstruction.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/mBdO1Rc9ctU
Watch:
Featuring video clips from -- Tulsi Gabbard,
former Democratic Congressmember; President Joe Biden; Brett McGurk, National Security Council coordinator for the Middle
East and North Africa; Martin Dempsey, former Joint Chiefs chairman; Rob Malley, Special Envoy for Iran; John Kerry,
Special Envoy for Climate & former Secretary of State; former President Donald Trump; Alena Douhan, UN Special Rapporteur
on Sanctions; Dana Stroul, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Middle East; Vice President Kamala Harris.
While Gabbard has been vilified for her stance on Syria, many top White House officials – including Joe Biden himself –
have already acknowledged the same facts that she has called out.
Aaron Maté plays clips of Biden and
some of his most senior aides
admitting
to
the horrific realities of the US dirty war on Syria, and argues that Gabbard only stands apart in being wiling to criticize
it
.
* * *
21,478
113
N
Garciathinksso
1 hour ago
(Edited)
Dems had a
perfectly fine candidate in Gabbard, no surprise she was shunned and ignored by her own party
newworldorder
1 hour ago
Democrats wanted fake males like Beto and but-plug Pete, instead of a Female USNG Officer.
BarnacleBill
22 minutes ago
Tulsi understood exactly what goes on over there - the utter cruelties and uncaring slaughters that are
responsible for the contempt with which the USA is held by the civilised people of the world. The wars
are - as I wrote in one of my personal journal/blog posts some years ago - a war against women. (Link
below) The women in mind were - and are still today - unarmed non-combatants, who are murdered
deliberately in order to punish their menfolk and to traumatise their children. It is as disgusting as
the German camps of the 1940s, and will be remembered in the same way by the survivors in their homes
eighty years from now. They will never forget.
Just to point out - Tulsi Gabbard made it all the way through the Democrat Primaries, and won more
votes and delegates than Kamala Harris (who dropped out before even the first primary), yet Harris
somehow became the presumptive co-President with Dementia Joe.
Yes, Virginia, it was a color revolution
thezone
1 hour ago
She'll probably be called a Russian Agent for criticizing the supreme ruler. Oh wait, that already
happened.
You_Cant_Quit_Me
1 hour ago
Biden is a warmonger who has no problem sending your sons and daughters off as target on a phantom war
madashellron
42 minutes ago
(Edited)
remove
link
God
Bless Tulsi. She is one of the only politicians speaking of these grave Crimes Against Humanity, the US
is engaged in Syria.
One
final note. The Syrian envoy from Russia. Publicly warned Israel. If they continue attacking Syria.
Russia will have no choice but to start shooting down Israel's Jets. Since this warning almost a week
ago. Israel has not attacked Syria.
rwe2late
1 hour ago
(Edited)
Not
only Syria.
The
US
every day
now attacks
foreigners with about 50 bombs and missiles, possibly much more, mostly in secrecy, and in half dozen or
more countries.
The
US admitted to 27,923 bombs in 2018, and 17,281 bombs in 2019. In 2020, the totals were made secret.
Not ever included were attacks by helicopters, gunships, or strafing.
"the U.S. military and its allies are engaged in
bombing and killing people in other countries on a daily basis. The U.S. and its allies have dropped more
than 326,000 bombs and missiles on people in other countries since 2001."
Tulsi, sometimes I think there's a chance for you, then you go and blow it by retreating back to your
Democratic brethren and vote the party line. You can't have it both ways.
novictim
59 minutes ago
remove
link
It's critical that the fairly elected Assad regime be deposed ASAP and ISIS linked militants become the
governance force. Why? Because China Joe did not win the US Presidential Election and, thus, any fairly
elected leader is a threat to the US Deep State establishment.
Master Jack
1 hour ago
remove
link
A
better question is:
Can
anyone explain why the US is involved in so many military conflicts that the government refuses to call
wars?
King of Kalifornia
1 hour ago
Here's a hint.
The US killed 2million plus people, spent over a trillion dollars, and lost thousands of their own
attacking Iraq.
"... It is difficult to know or to ensure that the ballots are actual ballots from registered voters. For example in the early hours of the morning of November 4 large ballot drops occurred in Michigan and Wisconsin that wiped out Trump's lead. State officials have reported that people not registered -- probably illegals -- were permitted to vote. Postal service workers have reported being ordered to backdate ballots that suddenly appeared in the middle of the night after the deadline. These techniques were used to erase Trump's substantial leads in the states of Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Georgia. ..."
"... Digital technology has also made it easy to alter vote counts. US Air Force General Thomas McInerney is familiar with this technology. He says it was developed by the National Security Agency in order to interfere in foreign elections, but now is in the hands of the CIA and was used to defeat Trump. Trump is considered to be an enemy of the military/security complex because of his wish to normalize relations with Russia, thus taking away the enemy that justifies the CIA's budget and power. ..."
"... The military/security complex favors the disunity that the Democrat Party and media have fostered with their ideology of Identity Politics. ..."
"... I would take it a little further and say that voting by mail is a method of vote fraud. The supposed safeguards are easily circumvented, as some whistleblowers have illustrated with ballots being brought forth in large numbers after election day without postmarks and postal workers being ordered to stamp them with acceptable postmarks. ..."
"... Eisenhower is always lauded for his MIC warning. Frankly he ticks me off. Thanks for the warning AFTER you were in some position to mitigate. ..."
"... the most likely source of fraud that is hard to detect, is ballot harvesting. This should be outlawed as it violates the idea of a secret ballot. Somebody comes to the home of a disinterested voter and makes sure he votes (of course they will never admit to hounding the person) and "helps" them with the ballot. If the voter cannot be cajoled into voting the correct way, you merely throw his ballot in the trash. ..."
"... Living in an urban setting I often had to visit apartment buildings. Without fail, there was always a pile of undeliverable mail in the lobby under the mailboxes. ..."
"... His farewell address was just flapdoodle; it wasn't really dredged up till the 70s. Eisenhower spent eight years spreading tripwires and mines and then said "Watch out." Thanks buddy. ..."
"... As the German newspaper editor Udo Ulfkotte revealed in his book, Bought Journalism, the European and US media speak with one voice -- the voice of the CIA. The very profitable and powerful US military/security complex needs foreign enemies. ..."
"... inventive creative new ways to deceive.. first it was election machines, then mail in votes. ..."
"... The phrase "there's no evidence" is just a public commitment to ignore any evidence, no matter how blatant or obvious. ..."
"... Paper ballots as ascribed by Tulsi Gabbard legislation is the only safe option for elections. Kudos to Tulsi! ..."
"... Everyone knew about the potential for voter fraud to occur, but the entire system is corrupt, including Trump who has allowed the massive corruption within the system that was present when he entered office to persist and grow because he is a wimpy, spineless, coward, that was too afraid to make any waves and take the heat that he promised his voters. ..."
"... Why anyone voted for Trump in 2020 confounds me. I voted for him in 2016 and he has turned out to be one of the worst presidents in history. ..."
"... Trump in his cowardess and dishonesty knew that the ailing economy would harm his chances of being re-elected, so he allowed the health scare scamdemic to occur and destroy the livelihoods, lives, and businesses of hundreds of millions of Americans because he is a psychopath. Trump did not do what he promised. Trump made America worse than it has ever been since the end of slavery. ..."
"... Trump has also demanded the extradition of Assange after telling his voters that he loved wikileaks. Trump is a two-faced, lying, fraud. It has been his pattern. He consistently supports various groups and people like Wikileaks, Proud Boys, and others and panders to them and voters and tells people that he loves them, and then every time without fail when the heat is on, Trump says," I really don't know anything about them." ..."
"... "I know nothing." Trump saying "I know nothing." defines his presidency and who he is as a person, a spineless, pandering, corrupt, two-faced, narcissist, loser, and wimp! ..."
A few months ago it looked like the re-election of Trump was almost certain, but now there was a close race between Trump
and Biden? What happen during the last months?
In the months before the election, the Democrats used the "Covid pandemic" to put in place voting by mail. The argument was used
that people who safely go to supermarkets and restaurants could catch Covid if they stood in voting lines. Never before used on a
large scale, voting by mail is subject to massive vote fraud.
There are many credible reports of organized vote fraud committed by Democrats. The only question is whether the Republican establishment
will support challenging the documented fraud or whether Trump will be pressured to concede in order to protect the reputation of
American Democracy.
It is difficult to know or to ensure that the ballots are actual ballots from registered voters. For example in the early
hours of the morning of November 4 large ballot drops occurred in Michigan and Wisconsin that wiped out Trump's lead. State officials
have reported that people not registered -- probably illegals -- were permitted to vote. Postal service workers have reported being
ordered to backdate ballots that suddenly appeared in the middle of the night after the deadline. These techniques were used to erase
Trump's substantial leads in the states of Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Georgia.
Digital technology has also made it easy to alter vote counts. US Air Force General Thomas McInerney is familiar with this
technology. He says it was developed by the National Security Agency in order to interfere in foreign elections, but now is in the
hands of the CIA and was used to defeat Trump. Trump is considered to be an enemy of the military/security complex because of his
wish to normalize relations with Russia, thus taking away the enemy that justifies the CIA's budget and power.
People do not understand. They think an election has been held when in fact what has occurred is that massive vote fraud has been
used to effect a revolution against red state white America. Leaders of the revolution, such as Democrat Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez,
are demanding a list of Trump supporters who are "to be held accountable." Calls are being made for the arrest of Tucker Carlson,
the only mainstream journalist who supported President Trump.
In a recent column I wrote:
"Think what it means that the entirety of the US media, allegedly the 'watchdogs of democracy,' are openly involved in participating
in the theft of a presidential election.
"Think what it means that a large number of Democrat public and election officials are openly involved in the theft of a presidential
election.
"It means that the United States is split irredeemably. The hatred for white people that has been cultivated for many years,
portraying white Americans as "systemic racists," together with the Democrats' lust for power and money, has destroyed national
unity. The consequence will be the replacement of rules with force."
Mainstream media in Europe claim, that Trump had "divided" the United States. But isn`t it actually the other way around,
that his opponents have divided the country?
As the German newspaper editor Udo Ulfkotte revealed in his book, Bought Journalism , the European and US media speak with
one voice -- the voice of the CIA. The very profitable and powerful US military/security complex needs foreign enemies. Russiagate
was a CIA/FBI successful effort to block Trump from reducing tensions with Russia. In 1961 in his last address to the American people
President Dwight Eisenhower warned that the growing power of the military/industrial complex was a threat to American democracy.
We ignored his warning and now have security agencies more powerful than the President.
The military/security complex favors the disunity that the Democrat Party and media have fostered with their ideology of Identity
Politics. Identity politics replaced Marxist class war with race and gender war. White people, and especially white heterosexual
males, are the new oppressor class. This ideology causes race and gender disunity and prevents any unified opposition to the security
agencies ability to impose its agendas by controlling explanations. Opposition to Trump cemented the alliance between Democrats,
media, and the Deep State.
It is possible that the courts will decide who will be sworn into office at January 20, 2021. Do you except a phase of uncertainty
or even a constitutional crisis?
There is no doubt that numerous irregularities indicate that the election was stolen and that the ground was well laid in advance.
Trump intends to challenge the obvious theft. However, his challenges will be rejected in Democrat ruled states, as they were part
of the theft and will not indict themselves. This means Trump and his attorneys will have to have constitutional grounds for taking
their cases to the federal Supreme Court. The Republicans have a majority on the Court, but the Court is not always partisan.
Republicans tend to be more patriotic than Democrats, who denounce America as racist, fascist, sexist, imperialist. This patriotism
makes Republicans impotent when it comes to political warfare that could adversely affect America's reputation. The inclination of
Republicans is for Trump to protect America's reputation by conceding the election. Republicans fear the impact on America's reputation
of having it revealed that America's other major party plotted to steal a presidental election.
Red state Americans, on the other hand, have no such fear. They understand that they are the targets of the Democrats, having
been defined by Democrats as "racist white supremacist Trump deplorables."
The introduction of a report of the Heritage Foundation states that "the United States has a long and unfortunate history
of election fraud". Are the 2020 presidential elections another inglorious chapter in this long history?
This time the fraud is not local as in the past. It is the result of a well organized national effort to get rid of a president
that the Establishment does not accept.
Somehow you get the impression that in the USA – as in many European countries democracy is just a facade – or am I wrong?
You are correct. Trump is the first non-establishment president who became President without being vetted by the Establishment
since Ronald Reagan. Trump was able to be elected only because the Establishment thought he had no chance and took no measures to
prevent his election. A number of studies have concluded that in the US the people, despite democracy and voting, have zero input
into public policy.
Democracy cannot work in America because the money of the elite prevails. American democracy is organized in order to prevent
the people from having a voice. A political campaign is expensive. The money for candidates comes from interest groups, such as defense
contractors, Wall Street, the pharmaceutical industry, the Israel Lobby. Consequently, the winning candidate is indebted to his funders,
and these are the people whom he serves.
European mainstream media are portraying Biden as a luminous figure. Should Biden become president, what can be expected
in terms of foreign and security policy, especially in regard to China, Russia and the Middle East? I mean, the deep state and the
military-industrial complex remain surely nearly unchanged.
Biden will be a puppet, one unlikely to be long in office. His obvious mental confusion will be used either to rule through him
or to remove him on grounds of mental incompetence. No one wants the nuclear button in the hands of a president who doesn't know
which day of the week it is or where he is.
The military/security complex needs enemies for its power and profit and will be certain to retain the list of desirable foreign
enemies -- Russia, Iran, China, and any independent-inclined country in Latin America. Being at war is also a way of distracting
the people of the war against their liberties.
What the military/security complex might not appreciate is that among its Democrat allies there are some, such as Representative
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who are ideological revolutionaries. Having demonized red state America and got rid of Trump (assuming
the electoral fraud is not overturned by the courts), Ocasio-Cortez and her allies intend to revolutionize the Democrat Party and
make it a non-establishment force. In her mind white people are the Establishment, which we already see from her demands for a list
of Trump supporters to be punished.
I think I'm not wrong in assuming that a Biden-presidency would mean more identity politics, more political correctness
etc. for the USA. How do you see this?
Identity politics turns races and genders against one another. As white people -- "systemic racists" -- are defined as the oppressor
class, white people are not protected from hate speech and hate crimes. Anything can be said or done to a white American and it is
not considered politically incorrect.
With Trump and his supporters demonized, under Democrat rule the transition of white Americans into second or third class citizens
will be completed.
How do you access Trump's first term in office? Where was he successful and where he failed?
Trump spent his entire term in office fighting off fake accusations -- Russiagate, Impeachgate, failure to bomb Russia for paying
Taliban to kill American occupiers of Afghanistan, causing Covid by not wearing a mask, and so on and on.
That Trump survived all the false charges shows that he is a real person, a powerful character. Who else could have survived what
Trump has been subjected to by the Establishment and their media prostitutes. In the United States the media is known as "presstitutes"
-- press prostitutes. That is what Udo Ulfkotte says they are in Europe. As a former Wall Street Journal editor, I say with complete
confidence that there is no one in the American media today I would have hired. The total absence of integrity in the Western media
is sufficient indication that the West is doomed.
Never before used on a large scale, voting by mail is subject to massive vote fraud.
I would take it a little further and say that voting by mail is a method of vote fraud. The supposed safeguards are easily
circumvented, as some whistleblowers have illustrated with ballots being brought forth in large numbers after election day without
postmarks and postal workers being ordered to stamp them with acceptable postmarks.
It really seems to me that there would be no democrat majorities in Congress or in so many state legislatures without vote
fraud.
Worse than the fraud available with vote by mail is the voting of people normally who don't bother to vote. Think of how stupid
and uninformed that average American voter is. Now realize how much more stupid and uninformed the non-voter is, only now he votes.
However, the most likely source of fraud that is hard to detect, is ballot harvesting. This should be outlawed as it violates
the idea of a secret ballot. Somebody comes to the home of a disinterested voter and makes sure he votes (of course they will
never admit to hounding the person) and "helps" them with the ballot. If the voter cannot be cajoled into voting the correct way,
you merely throw his ballot in the trash.
I have little doubt that there have been massive "irregularities", particularly in the so-called battleground states, that
are at play in "stealing" the election.
...The favourite phrase these days is "no evidence of wide spread voter fraud". Let's break that down. Only 6 states have been
challenged for vote fraud. In the big scheme of things, 6 states is not wide spread, even if there is massive vote fraud within
those 6 states. That the vote fraud is not widespread, implies that some vote fraud is acceptable, and that the listener should
ignore it. Last and most importantly, in the narrowest of legalistic terms, testimony or affidavits are not evidence. Testimony
and affidavits become evidence when supported by physical evidence. An affidavit with a photograph demonstrating the statement
would be evidence.
Another phrase is something like "election officials say they have seen no evidence of voter fraud". I have yet to hear a reporter
challenge the "seen no evidence of " part of the statement, regardless of the subject, by asking if the speaker had looked for
any evidence. They won't, because they know damn well no one has.
That is how the liars operate. Not so different from Rumsfeld's "plausible deniability".
Living in an urban setting I often had to visit apartment buildings. Without fail, there was always a pile of undeliverable
mail in the lobby under the mailboxes.
The envelopes were mostly addressed to people who had moved out or died. If ballots were sent to these people based on incorrect
voter rolls, then these too would likely have been left sitting on the floor or on a ledge for anyone to take.
It doesn't take a leap of faith to know what a Trump-hating leftist would do when no one is looking. This moral hazard was
intentionally created by Dems, who know that urban dwellers are transient and lean left politically.
Eisenhower is always lauded for his MIC warning. Frankly he ticks me off. Thanks for the warning AFTER you were in some
position to mitigate.
Ike's a mystery. Why did he NOT question Harry Truman's commitments to NATO, the UN, and all that rubbish? Ike was a WWII guy.
He knew Americans hated the UN in 1953 as much as they hated the League of Nations after WWI. But he let it all slide and get
bigger.
His farewell address was just flapdoodle; it wasn't really dredged up till the 70s. Eisenhower spent eight years spreading
tripwires and mines and then said "Watch out." Thanks buddy.
Well, agree on your points however, on the other side of the ledger, he never understood the stupidity of the Korean war (that
he could have ended) and majorly up-ramped CIA activities in all manner of regime change (bay of pigs anyone?). Almost a direct
path to our foreign policy now (and now domestic policy)
He did deploy the military assistance advisory group to Vietnam in 1955. This is considered the beginning of U.S. involvement
in the war. This allowed the French to moonwalk out the back door leaving us holding the bag. In fairness this was Johnson's war
however. Eisenhower did cut the military budget as a peace dividend to fund interstate system and other domestic projects. In
today political spectrum he would be considered a flaming liberal.
As the German newspaper editor Udo Ulfkotte revealed in his book, Bought Journalism, the European and US media speak
with one voice -- the voice of the CIA. The very profitable and powerful US military/security complex needs foreign enemies.
What intrigues me is the ultimate political goal of the UN and the WEF when they anticipate a single global government centered
at the UN and the absence of nation-states.
So what is the MIC going to do when there are no existential threats of competing nation-states? Or will the MIC re-engineer
religious wars between the various religious groups, secular and theological? It seems the aspirations of the WEF and its fellow
travellers preclude the occurrence of future armed conflicts.
Of course one needs capitalistic economies to produce the ordnance and materiels for the engineered social factions to war
with each other. Yet if the Greens have their way, there will be no mining period.
More likely is the possibility that none of them actually understand what they are doing. As Nassim Taleb is alleged to have
remarked, 99% of humans are stupid.
The total absence of integrity in the Western media is sufficient indication that the West is doomed.
It's because Western media is completely under the control of Jews, the world's foremost End Justifies Means people. The Fourth
Estate has become the world's most powerful Bully Pulpit. There are still a few good ones though, brave souls they are: Kim Strassel
of WSJ, Daniel Larison of The American Conservative , Neil Munro of Breitbart.
The rest are more or less lying scums, including everyone on NYTimes, WSJ, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, MSNBC, Fox News (minus
Tucker Carlson and Maria Bartiromo), The Economist , and let's not forget the new media: Google, Facebook, Twitter. The
world would be a much better place without any of them.
@Beavertales
-- with either vote flipping on machines or having the totals that paper ballot scanners tabulate adjust via a pre-programmed
algorithm. Many elections have already been stolen this way.
Nancy Pelosi claims that Biden's victory gives the Democrats a "MANDATE" to alter the economy as they see fit with 50.5%.
This proves that Biden will NOT represent everyone – only the left! I have warned that this has been their agenda from day one.
Now, three whistleblowers from the Democratic software company Dominion Voting Systems, alleging that the company's software stole
38 million votes from Trump. There are people claiming that Dominion Voting Systems is linked to Soros, Dianae Finesteing, Clintons,
and Pelosi's husband. I cannot verify any of these allegations so far.
We are at the Rubicon. Civil War is on the other side. There should NEVER be this type of drastic change to the economy
from Capitalism to Marxism on 50.5% of the popular vote. NOBODY should be able to restructure the government and the economy on
less than 2/3rds of the majority. That would be a mandate. Trying to change everything with a claim of 50.5% of the vote will
only signal, like the Dread Scot decision, that there is no solution by rule of law. This is the end of civilization and it will
turn ugly from here because there is no middle ground anymore. As I have warned, historically the left will never tolerate opposition.
Yes, the theft is blatant. But what are you, us, going to do about it? We really can't do much as the Office of the President
Elect requires us to wear masks. For our safety.
"in the narrowest of legalistic terms, testimony or affidavits are not evidence. Testimony and affidavits become evidence when
supported by physical evidence. " Correct – but they also can become evidence by verbal testimony. ie "I saw the defendant hit
the victim with a rock"
Not only have they stolen the election but when Joe Biden and other democrats claim that President Trump caused the deaths
of hundreds of thousands of Americans because of his handling of Covid 19, they are in sane. No world leader could stop the spread
of this respiratory virus. However, Joe Biden and democrats have caused the deaths of hundreds of white people, while whipping
up weak minded people to kill many whites. Biden and the democrats are criminals. Any one who is white, man or woman, that supports
the democratic party is enabling a criminal organization to perpetrate violence on white people, including murder.
Since the article was from a German magazine it's understandable that there is no mention of "the one who shall not be named".
No mention of the people behind the Lawfare group, the same people behind the impeachment, the same people providing financial
and ideological support for the BLM/Antifa, the same people that own the media that spewed lies for 5 years and censored any mention
of the Biden family corruption, no mention of the people behind this Color Revolution, the same people who promoted the mail in
voting and those that managed the narrative for the media on election night to stop Trump's momentum.
For the public consumption the election will be described in vague terms, like this article, blaming special interests and
institutions like the FBI, CIA and MIC without naming names as if an institution, not the oligarchs and chosen pulling the strings,
are somehow Marxist, anti-white or anti-Christian.
The interviewer quotes the Heritage Foundation does anyone even care what they say? The English Tavistock Institute by way
of the CIA which the British molded from the OSS created programs for the Heritage Foundation as well as the Hoover Institute,
MIT, Stanford University, Wharton, Rand etc. These "rightwing think tanks" were created to counter the CIA's "leftwing think tanks"
at Columbia, Berkeley etc. Thank you British Intelligence.
Steve Bannon was just interviewing someone (can't remember his name). Apparently there are about 200 to 300 IT professionals/engineers
working on these so-called "glitches" (not glitches at all) which mysteriously "disappeared" thousands of Trump votes. Then they'd
dump phony Biden votes into the mix. These IT professionals are going to follow the trail.
I've also heard that Dominion Voting Systems played a big part in this scam by using algorithms. One Trump lawyer said that
big revelations are coming.
We're going to have to be patient and just wait.
"The inclination of Republicans is for Trump to protect America's reputation by conceding the election."
I honestly think it's more like the old established Republicans (corporate bought) want Trump to lose because that is what
their campaign donors want (Big Pharma, Wall Street, etc.) They are part of the elite, and the elite (both the Democrats AND Republicans)
want Trump gone so they can continue their crony capitalist looting. They've got to appear like they're behind Trump, but I don't
think they are. Of course, that's not all Republican representatives.
Sounds like they've been rigging elections for awhile now. I bet they just messed up with Hillary. I think that's why she was
so upset. She had it, but they screwed up and didn't supply enough ballots.
@KenHinventive creative new ways to deceive.. first it was election machines, then mail in votes. next it will be magic carpet
voting. But the votes don't count, cause it is the electoral college that elects the President.
Trump also lost a significant number who did not understand Trump was an Israeli at heart, they thought he was a uncoothed
NYC red blooded American.
As far as white, black or pokadot color or any of the religions ganging up against Trump I don't think that happened, the fall
out into statistically discoverable categories is just that, fall out, not those categories conspiring to vote or not vote one
way or the other.
PCR seems to have trouble seeing a difference between the counting of perfectly proper votes which Pres Trump's post office
delivered late which may or may not be allowed by law which can be determined in court, and fraud like the dead voting or votes
being forged.
The fraud is all so transparent but no one in the power elite seems to give a crap whether the public catches on or not these
days. They know that the entire media which creates the false matrix of contrived "truth" that we all live in will back them to
the hilt because they are actually just one more working part in the grand conspiracy. We all know that when "O'Brian" says 2
+ 2 equals 5 we must all believe it, or at least say we do. We interface with "O'Brian's" minions on a daily basis but we don't
know the ultimate identity of "O'Brian" (in the singular or multiple). Many guesses are made, but they hide that from us fairly
well with the aid of their militaries and "intelligence" agencies (aka secret police in other times and places).
For example in the early hours of the morning of November 4 large ballot drops occurred in Michigan and Wisconsin that wiped
out Trump's lead.
In a very similar vein, it is the same thing that happened to Bernie Sanders during the primary's. Joe was down and out, and
Bernie was enjoying the lead and then "Bam!" Overnight Joe is back on top.
Well, fool me once,,,,,, .,and blah, blah whatever Bush said .
Dr Roberts has referenced in the interview a UR article that goes into considerable detail about the massive electoral fraud
by the Democrats and their partners. You've obviously not bothered to read it.
You're like one of those MSM hacks who denies electoral fraud without making any attempt to look at the evidence.
@Begemot
And it's almost always a closer race than anyone would have guessed beforehand -- which I also find suspicious. How likely is
it that the majority of presidential elections over the last century were decided by more or less even numbers of voters from
each party, between more or less evenly matched candidates?
Really seems like they've perfected the art of putting on rigged political shows that you can't quite believe in, but don't
have anything really solid to back up your suspicions. It's like the "no evidence of fraud" canard -- anything solid enough to
show obvious manipulation is explained away as the exception, rather than the tip of a very deep iceberg
Like the false accusations about Russia, delegitimizing the presidential election as fraud is turning out to be much ado
about nothing.
Let's review. The Democrats perpetrated the phony 2016 Russian influence fraud, and now the Democrats are perpetrating the
phony 2020 election victory.
The common elements are Democrats perpetrate fraud.
IMO this is a simple remedy to settle the election fraud mess or we will be arguing about this 20 years from now .from the
American Thinker.
The candidates on the ballot must have an opportunity to have observers whom they choose to oversee the entire process so
the candidates are satisfied that they won or lost a free and fair election.
That is not what happened in the 2020 election. That is the single most important and simple fact that needs to be understood
and communicated. The 2020 election was not a free and fair election, because poll-watchers were not allowed to do their essential
job. The 2020 election can still be a free and fair election with a clear winner, whoever that may be, but time is running
out.
In every instance where poll-watchers were not allowed to observe the process, those votes must be recounted. They must
be recounted with poll-watchers from both sides present. If there are votes that cannot be recounted because the envelops were
discarded, those votes must be discarded. Put the blame for this on the officials who decided to count the votes in secret.
Consider it a way to discourage secret vote counts in the future.
The pandemic has not been fearful enough to close liquor stores, and it in should not be used as excuse to remove the poll-watchers
who are essential to a free and fair election. If we must have social distancing, then use cameras.
Certainly, there are other issues with the 2020 election. There may be problems with software, and there are issues like
signature verification and dead people voting. Everything should be considered and examined, but no other issue should distract
from the simple fact that both sides must be able to view the entire process. If one side is not allowed to view the vote-counting,
then that side should be calling it a fraud. We should all be calling it a fraud.
...Trump had control of the Senate, the House and of course the Executive between his inauguration in January of 2017 and the
Midterm Elections of 2018, a total time period of 1 year and 10 months. What did he do during this time? He deregulated financial
services and passed corporate tax cuts.
At the end of the day, being emotionally invested in US elections is no different to being emotionally invested in Keeping
up with the Kardashians , that is to say your life wouldn't be that different if your don't follow either.
The Democrats Have Stolen the Presidential Election
The Deep State Has Stolen the Presidential Election. FIFY. But they have been in control for decades they just don't care who
knows now. They are taking final steps to make their control impervious to attack.
This is the reason that the establishment latched on to the Eisenhowerian bon mot but entirely memory hole Trumman's
far more explicit warning a freaking month after a sitting president is shot like a turkey in Dallas: it white washes CIA and
NSC .
The place to begin, and it's mind-blowing when you think about it this way, is that nothing was resolved on election night.
Not who will take the oath on January 20th. Nor which party will control the Senate. Nor even who will be Speaker and which party
will control the House.
Suffice it to say, a still raging factional struggle has simply moved to a greater degree behind the curtain.
I noted this movie reference on another thread here:
If your father dies, you'll make the deal, Sonny.
-- "The Godfather"
My point being, you're foolish if you ascribe certainty as to outcome at this point.
Being rid of Trump has been as close to a dues ex machina for the establishment as imaginable since he took the oath. This
ineluctable observation elicits no end of foot-stomping by those who assume it necessarily says anything positive about the man.
With every persistent revision of the script they wrote for him, all ending with his political demise at least, Trump has not
just survived but grown stronger. While the Democrats turned our elections into something only seen in a third-world shit hole,
Trump legitimately drew 71M votes from Americans.
That's a lot of air in the balloon. Believe me, filth like Russian mole Brennan may think everything is finished once they
get rid of terrible, awful Trump, but those above his pay grade know better.
Like him or hate him, Trump is the only principal not wholly or largely discredited. He was saved from destruction during his
first term by the Republican base moving to protect him. That was the import of his 90-95% approval among them, destroy him and
you destroy the Republican Party.
Now, despite -- or perhaps, because of -- everything they've done, that base now includes a significant number of Democrats
and independents. Trump is merely a vessel for an American majority attached to this constitutional republic thingie we've got
going.
Don't get lost in the details. This isn't a puzzle you can solve by internet sleuthing. The plan they executed -- to steal
sufficiently to make the outcome inevitable by the morning after the election at the latest -- failed. This was evident early
on Election Day (e.g. fake water main breaks in Atlanta) and necessitated their playing their Fox/AZ card and shutting down the
count at least until they had removed Republican monitors.
"In 22 states, Republicans will hold unified control over the governor's office and both houses of the legislature, giving
the party wide political latitude -- including in states like Florida and Georgia."
"Eleven states will have divided governments in 2021, unchanged from this year: Democratic governors will need to work with
Republican legislators in eight states, and Republican governors will contend with Democratic lawmakers in three."
The Democrats have: Joe Biden, and a slim majority in the House of Representatives which they are almost certain to lose in
two years.
What the Republicans are going to do is everything we hate, but they will pretend they were "forced" to do it by the Democrats
– the Democrats being the minority party.
Who else could have survived what Trump has been subjected to by the Establishment and their media prostitutes. In the United
States the media is known as "presstitutes" -- press prostitutes. That is what Udo Ulfkotte says they are in Europe.
Left and right.
(What you small brains do not understand is this.)
Democrats enabling the elite to invest in far east (lower wage costs, higher profits) did abandon the working class in America.
Democrats by this act did throw away the working class as a dirty rug.
Democrats with their TPP exporting most of the production to far east would totally destroy working class in USA. Trump's first
act was to cancel this insanity. Democrats are insanely delusional.
Democrats were left. Left is a party that supports the working people.
So here switch occurred. Democratic party now represent the elite, and Republicans now represent the working people.
(The irony of the fate)
The headline for PCR's article is a prediction, not yet established, and incomplete.
There is an ongoing massive attempt to steal the Presidential election as well as to steal an unknown number of House and Senate
seats, and who knows what else.
The 'game' is still on. Many tens of millions of citizens – actual total unknown but possibly in numbers unprecedented in American
history – voted for Trump. Republican candidates for office generally had strong support, but again, the actual percentage of
support is unknown but presumably larger than now 'recorded'.
There are also the many millions who ardently supported Trump, know that Biden is illegitimate, deeply corrupt, and the precursor
to perils unknown. Their determination and backbone and intelligence will now be tested.
There is the electoral college process; there are the state legislators that have a say in the process; there is the Supreme
Court.
There is also the possibility of pertinent executive orders that mandate transparent processes in the face of, say, apprehended
insurrection via fraudulent voting processes.
There is also the matter of how millions of 'deplorables' with trucks and tractors and firearms and other means to make their
point will react to obvious massive election travesty.
The conjunction of the COVID global scamdemic/plandemic, with crazed Bill Gates and kin lurking in the background with needles,
'peaceful' protesters in many cities setting fires and looting with near impunity, and a mass media that is clearly comprehensively
committed to a demonic degree of dishonesty and manipulation, and lunatic levels of 'identity politics' ideology, are among the
elements setting the stage for what may be an historical watershed.
The American Revolution in the 18th century, against the British Crown's authority, came about after years of simmering anger
and sporadic resistance against British injustice. At some point there was a 'tipping point'. When Germany invaded and occupied
Norway early in the 2nd WW, an effective resistance quickly formed in reaction, where death and torture were the known willing
risk. Two years before, those forming the resistance would have been just going on with their lives.
Who's Afraid of an Open Debate? The Truth About the Commission on Presidential Debates. The CPD is a duopoly which allows the
major party candidates to draft secret agreements about debate arrangements including moderators, debate format and even participants.
Ben Swann explains how the new coalition of EndPartisanship org is working to break the 2 party hold on primary elections,
which currently lock around 50% of voters out of the process.
I am currently watching an interview with SD Governor Kristi Noem, who went on ABC to challenge George Stenopolosus' claim
that there is no fraud in this election. She pointed out that there has been many allegations, including dead people voting in
PA and GA, she says we don't know how widespread this is, but we owe it to the 70+ million people who voted for Trump to investigate
and ensure a clean and fair election. She said we gave Al Gore 37 days to investigate the result in 2000, why aren't we giving
the same to Trump?
She is extremely articulate and sounds intelligent and honest, and what's more courageous to come forward like this. I hope
she runs for president in 2024, I'd vote for her.
Am I the only one who sees something profoundly spiritual happening in front of our eyes?
Yes. In reality, 5% of White men sent Trump packing. That doesn't match the GOP negrophile narrative where "based" Hindustanis
join the emerging conservative coalition to make sure White people can't get affordable healthcare in their own countries, though.
So we'll have to watch you parasites spool up this pedantic "fraud" nonsense until the fat orange zioclown gracelessly gets dragged
out.
Good post. You will gain more insight from this background on the speech and drafting.
Jan 19, 2011 Eisenhower's "Military-Industrial Complex" Speech Origins and Significance US National Archives
President Dwight D. Eisenhower's farewell address, known for its warnings about the growing power of the "military-industrial
complex," was nearly two years in the making. This Inside the Vaults video short follows newly discovered papers revealing that
Eisenhower was deeply involved in crafting the speech.
Great article. Thanks. Agree with you about the big stealing being electronic. Trump tweeted out yesterday that over 2 million
votes were stolen this way. For him to say this, they must have evidence.
Dinesh D'Souza said he hopes that when this matter comes before the Supreme Court that they will tackle once and for all what
constitutes a legal vote.
Some pretty big names are involved with this Dominion Voting. It will be interesting to see what Trump's team of IT experts
discover re the use of algorithms to swing the vote.
Why (Oh, why) did Trump had to go? Because Trump is an enema to the Deep State. He was threatening to expose the biggest lie
of the last 100 years – the supposed "liberalism" of US...
The author refers to a body of overwhelmingly persuasive evidence of voter fraud that can be specified and quantified to provide
proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal cases, not to mention hands down proof in civil cases requiring only a preponderance
of the evidence to establish guilt. Furthermore, the Democrats' easily documented, elaborate efforts at concealing the vote counting
process by shutting down the counting prior to sneaking truckloads of ballots in the back door is by itself powerful circumstantial
evidence of their guilt. You have no idea what "evidence" means, either in general usage or in its strictly legal sense.
The election cannot be trusted at all, just based on the insane entitled emotional state of the Globalist establishment alone.
The system as-a-whole cannot be trusted, for the same reason. They are actively corrupting it in every way they can, and fully
believe (as a matter of religious conviction) that they are right to do so.
That's one of the Jew/Anglo Puritan Establishment's new catch-phrases. There's also "no evidence" that Joe Biden acted in a
corrupt manner in Ukraine, even though he admitted to it on tape. There's "no evidence" that Big Tech is biased against conservative
plebians, despite their removing conservative plebians' published content arbitrarily and with no State compulsion to do so.
The phrase "there's no evidence" is just a public commitment to ignore any evidence, no matter how blatant or obvious.
This newly discovered legal standard goes beyond "preponderance of the evidence" or even "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt"
to establish absolute certainty as the standard.
Just the obvious and necessary complement of the Bob Mueller standard for Russian collusion, don't you think -- "could not
(quite) exonerate"? /s
They went for a softer approach in KY in 2019. The first-term Repub Gov had a Yankee's forthrightness so they just latched
onto comments he made regarding the underfunded teachers pension program and amped-it to high heaven getting teachers all in a
frightful frenzy.
In that solidly Red state, with all other prominent offices on the ballot (AG, SoS, etc.) going overwhelmingly Repub
, somehow the Repub Gov loses to the Dem by around 5000 votes. The "teachers pension" narrative was rolled-out as the reason.
(Btw, it seems that Dominion, or another type, software was used to switch the votes in that race. I've seen video about it.)
@Orville
H. Larson out how the winds are blowing. There is nothing good about it.
Why not this:
-- ONLY in-person voting over a 2-day period, a Sat and Sun, with polls being open from 6AM to 9PM both days.
-- Exceptions are the traditional requested absentee ballot where the voter can be authenticated.
-- Paper ballots must be used at the polls and no single box of 'Straight Vote by Party' is offered.
-- Some kind of SIMPLE scanning tabulator could be used of the ballots and with it NOT being connected to the internet.
There is far too much cheating opportunity built into our current system. That's intended, of course. It needs to end!
Because you don't get it. You are missing the big picture. It was well known that these systems had the ability to be hacked
as soon as they were implemented. It is also a well known fact that massive mail in ballots increases the likelihood that corrupt
individuals are more likely to get away with election fraud.
Everyone knew about the potential for voter fraud to occur, but the entire system is corrupt, including Trump who has allowed
the massive corruption within the system that was present when he entered office to persist and grow because he is a wimpy, spineless,
coward, that was too afraid to make any waves and take the heat that he promised his voters.
Why anyone voted for Trump in 2020 confounds me. I voted for him in 2016 and he has turned out to be one of the worst presidents
in history.
Trump in his cowardess and dishonesty knew that the ailing economy would harm his chances of being re-elected, so he allowed
the health scare scamdemic to occur and destroy the livelihoods, lives, and businesses of hundreds of millions of Americans
because he is a psychopath. Trump did not do what he promised. Trump made America worse than it has ever been since the end of
slavery. Jeremy Powell said today that the economy is dead and will never recover.
The only injustices that Trump gave a damn about were the injustices against himself and his family, and has committed countless
injustices against the entire country and world during his term. Trump is a corrupt narcissist. The facts prove it. Trump is such
a corrupt narcissist that he was willing to destroy the entire economy based on scientific fraud, high crimes, and treason to
use as political cover for his own incompetency which is the most offensive and disgusting diabolical act ever perpetrated on
the entire country.
Trump has also demanded the extradition of Assange after telling his voters that he loved wikileaks. Trump is a two-faced,
lying, fraud. It has been his pattern. He consistently supports various groups and people like Wikileaks, Proud Boys, and others
and panders to them and voters and tells people that he loves them, and then every time without fail when the heat is on, Trump
says," I really don't know anything about them."
"I know nothing." Trump saying "I know nothing." defines his presidency and who he is as a person, a spineless, pandering,
corrupt, two-faced, narcissist, loser, and wimp!
Why would anyone vote for him the second time around after a record of pathological incompetency and pathological corruption?
What's to approve of about him? Go ahead, investigate voter fraud it if is permitted, and if it isn't then ask yourselves why
it is that a system that enables election fraud is in place, and ask yourselves who had the ability to change it and, who had
the ability to benefit from it!
"I had planned to get the vaccine but will now stand in solidarity with our seniors by
not doing so until THEY can. I urge my colleagues who are under 65 and healthy to join me,"
Gabbard said in a Monday morning message posted to Twitter.
The congresswoman and previous presidential hopeful blasted "heartless bureaucrats"
at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for not prioritizing seniors, viewed as the
most vulnerable to Covid-19, in their rollout plan.
Seniors were deemed a second-priority group by the Advisory Committee on Immunization
Practices, which recommended health care workers, nursing home staff/residents receive the
vaccine first. CDC Director Robert Redfield could still prioritize seniors. He has expressed
support for ensuring people over the age of 70 receive the vaccine sooner rather than
later.
Gabbard's statement stands in contrast to the actions of many lawmakers who have received
the vaccine before it is available to most Americans.
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Florida), 49, was accused on social media of "cutting" to the
front of the line by critics after posting images of himself receiving the vaccine over the
weekend.
On the other side of the political aisle, 31-year-old Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-New York)
also received pushback after receiving the vaccine, with many citing her young age as a reason
for her not to be one of the first to get vaccinated.
Others, like journalist Glenn Greenwald, also pointed to the hypocrisy of many liberals
criticizing conservatives like Rubio, but celebrating Ocasio-Cortez's vaccination
announcement.
Senior lawmakers like House speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California), 80, and Senate majority
leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) have also been vaccinated.
The outgoing representative from Hawaii gave a harsh evaluation of the controversial
stimulus package, which many critics see as too little, too late for the country, which has
been ravaged by Covid-19. She said she voted against the bill because it was rushed and catered
to special interests rather than the needs of the people.
The almost 5,600-page package was distributed to lawmakers just hours before the vote, so
"There is no way that anybody in Congress had the opportunity or time to go through and read
this bill to know exactly what was in it," Gabbard said.
And its actual content – which allocates money to things like missiles for the
Pentagon and provides a tax break for corporate meals, dubbed the 'three martini lunch' by
critics – is "an insult and a slap in the face to every single American in this
country, who is struggling because of this Covid-19 pandemic."
This bill is a representation of the screwed-up priorities of Washington.
The bill was passed by the Democrat-controlled House 359-53 on Monday and was given a 92-6
stamp of approval by the Republican-controlled Senate hours later. President Donald Trump is
expected to sign it into law.
Gabbard, a maverick Democratic representative whose tenure ends next month, has a record of
voting against her own party and has taken flack for it in the past. Arguably the most notable
example was her 'present' vote on the articles of impeachment of President Trump a year ago.
She said she could not in good conscience vote either 'yes' or 'no' because she believed the
president to be guilty of wrongdoing, but saw the impeachment as a flawed process fueled by
partisanship.
Tulsi Gabbard said she ran as presidential candidate with the Democratic party because she
believed that a third party didn't stand a chance against the Dems' political clout. And
because she believed that the Dems could be brought back to their original goal, i.e. the
party of and for the people. I wonder if she still believes that. And I personally wonder if
there will be a 2024 presidential race, seeing that the USA is soon heading towards collapse
from a completely corrupt parasitic elite.
Nikolaidis 23 hours ago 11 Dec, 2020 08:31 PM
There is no room for sane people in an insane society. The US and most parts of the so-called
Western world are becoming more and more insane with their "gender correctness" making men
women and women men plus adding 87, or is it 114, new genders. It is a sure sign of social
decline and collapse. It is parallel to what can be observed when looking at the fall of the
Roman empire.
zoombeenie 19 hours ago 12 Dec, 2020 12:22 AM
Tulsi was America's chance at being at least No.2 to China. Now with already effectively a
one party state with both GOP and Dems beholden to their sponsors (MIC and the 1%) its now
jumping from the fire into the frying pan. Hope the US doesn't implode before the people wake
up to reality and see Tulsi as the saviour in 2024.
David Penrose Barneby 14 hours ago 12 Dec, 2020 05:21 AM
Tulsi Gabbard was the only credible democrat candidate for the presidency , I believe Tulsi
Gabbard would be a good president . America today has sunk beyond recognition , where lies ,
deceitfulness and brazen dishonesty are accepted as the norm .
Doodle_Dandy 15 hours ago 12 Dec, 2020 05:08 AM
This just proves to the world the total corruption within American politics. They can't talk
democracy, they are the world's largest terrorist organisation...and to think Yanks think
they are exceptional, makes me laugh...
David Penrose Barneby Doodle_Dandy 14 hours ago 12 Dec, 2020 05:30 AM
A laugh of derision ! I too would laugh , but unfortunately it isn't remotely funny . I'm
British , ashamed of the British government , I am ashamed that my sons and their California
wives vote democrat . Are even educated American So Ignorant that they are unaware of the
total corruption they are supporting ?
1justssayn 10 hours ago 12 Dec, 2020 09:20 AM
As a Democrat she endorsed the party instead of switching. Ronald Reagan said "I didn't leave
the democratic party, they left me". She should up hold her values and moral high ground by
changing parties. After this terrible year maybe the libertarian and Constitution parties
could arise and replace the Dem-, pub parties of corruption.
TWolsey 23 hours ago 11 Dec, 2020 08:42 PM
USA is crumbling. From within of course. That's how it is said it will happen.
a325 1 day ago 11 Dec, 2020 08:04 PM
Tulsi is so much the better person and candidate than Kamala!
Black Chinese 1 day ago 11 Dec, 2020 06:49 PM
I support Tulsi on this bill to level the playing field to protect the female gender to
compete with and against females and not WANNABE females with man muscles and everything a
man have at birth.
jangosimba 9 hours ago 12 Dec, 2020 10:44 AM
Tulsi can sleep well, knowing she does the right thing. I can't say that about any other
politician, none.
SNrt 1 day ago 11 Dec, 2020 05:25 PM
Well said Michael McCaffrey! Thank you! I wish I new you in person. :)
uncle_Alex 1 day ago 11 Dec, 2020 03:56 PM
I agree!
PedroNZ 19 hours ago 12 Dec, 2020 12:25 AM
Yep, we live in an upside-down world!
Crowfoot9 1 day ago 11 Dec, 2020 04:04 PM
I say let them accept all the trans people they want into woman's sports. All normal women
will eventually abandon professional competitions as all the unhinged glory seeking males
willing to earn some easy money and media attention will jump on this opportunity and kill
the sports. Will be interesting when this controversy reaches the olympics. All the non
western countries will abandon the Olympic Games and you'll be left with a western centred
competition which will look more like a circus show.
Blod_Grogan 7 hours ago 12 Dec, 2020 12:22 PM
Yes, America is floundering. But as long as it is possible to make a bad-to-hopeless
situation fine and dandy by just claiming it is, sonorously and with expansive arm-wavings,
the steady slide will continue. Believe it or not, it is sometimes worthwhile and beneficial
to tell the truth. Ah, you'd never heard that before, well, despite that, I can assure you
several honest people claim that's true too - silly buggers.
Fred Dozer 18 hours ago 12 Dec, 2020 01:28 AM
I have a lot of Tulsi , hats, and shirts and gave her several hundred dollars. I was upset to
say the least when she backed Biden. However I calmed a lot since than. I always wondered how
Lindsey Graham could keep winning. Says a lot about some Americans. Tulsi truth, is not what
most Americans, want to believe.
Manya 1 day ago 11 Dec, 2020 03:54 PM
Gabbard the one who is a member on the Council on Foreign Relations? Come on, RT, you can do
better. Keep in mind your website is supposed to be for the informed people, not the
Americans who can barely read and manage to watch "Dennis Miller +one."
D Green Manya 1 day ago 11 Dec, 2020 04:42 PM
Truth hurts. She's right on this issue, but 'broken clocks,' etc. CFR membership is a
huge red flag and like most Dems, Gabbard is also a gun-grabber. Any politician (most
all of them) who supports wholesale destruction of the Constitution and abrogating the
individual's right to self-defense is not to be trusted!
Nitupsar 3 hours ago 12 Dec, 2020 05:14 PM
That's exactly my sentiment too!
Donkey80 17 hours ago 12 Dec, 2020 02:54 AM
The greatest intrinsic quality of America is that it always gets the finest politicians money
can buy
Nathan075 18 hours ago 12 Dec, 2020 01:19 AM
Kamala Harris = Queen of Tarts.
apothqowejh 21 hours ago 11 Dec, 2020 11:01 PM
She should come to Texas and help us reestablish the republic.
Only in a nation that had taken leave of its senses would Tulsi Gabbard be denigrated and
Kamala Harris be queen-in-waiting
Michael McCaffrey
Michael McCaffrey is a writer and cultural critic who lives in Los Angeles. His work can be
read at RT, Counterpunch and at his website mpmacting.com/blog . He is also the host of the popular cinema
podcast Looking California and
Feeling Minnesota. Follow him on Twitter @MPMActingCo
In an age where lies are worshipped and cowardice celebrated, Tulsi Gabbard is despised for
her bravery and commitment to truth, while Kamala Harris is lauded for...what, exactly?
Tulsi Gabbard, the four-term Democratic congresswoman from Hawaii, is currently being
attacked by
liberals for introducing The Protect Women's Sports Act, which seeks to protect women's
athletics by recognizing that different sexes are born with different physical abilities.
Reasonable and rational people realize that men and women are biologically different.
Reasonable and rational people also realize that on average, men are bigger, stronger and
faster than women, and that just because someone born a male now subjectively "identifies" as a
female, that doesn't alter the objective fact that copious amounts of testosterone were pumping
through their body as it developed, thus making their competing against biological girls and
women in sport not only unfair, but dangerous.
These should not be controversial statements as they are obviously factually and
scientifically true. But objective truth is anathema in our age of subjective insanity. Which
is why Tulsi Gabbard's introduction of the Protect Women's Sports Act is a brazen act of
bravery.
This is why it is so perversely ironic that on the same day Tulsi Gabbard was being made a
pariah for courageously speaking plain truth and supporting common sense, Time Magazine was
announcing that the
empty pantsuit and monument to tokenism, Kamala Harris, and her chauffeur in the corporate
Democrat clown car, Joe Biden, were being honored as the Person of the Year.
If America were a sane place, Tulsi Gabbard, not Kamala Harris, would be the darling of the
supposedly liberal Democratic Party.
Gabbard is an intelligent, principled and charismatic woman of color, something the devotees
of diversity claim to desire. Her progressive bona fides are unquestionable as she vociferously
supports Medicare-for-All, a Universal Basic Income and wants to end the war on drugs and
private prisons. She is also a courageous anti-interventionist in addition to being a respected
Army Reservist and Iraq War veteran.
In contrast, Kamala Harris is a corrupt former "top cop" in California who brutalized the
poor
by being a proponent of the war on drugs yet let white-collar corporate criminals
skate . She is also a neo-liberal militarist who opposes
Medicare-for-All and a Universal Basic Income.
And yet, despite, or more likely because, of all of these things, Tulsi Gabbard is persona
non grata among the dupes, dopes and dullards in the Democratic party and media, while the
sellout and raging sub-mediocrity Kamala Harris is celebrated.
This is not surprising as Gabbard and her fetish for truth have long been a thorn in the
establishment's side, especially with her contrarian foreign policy beliefs, most notably
regarding Syria and Bashar Assad.
In 2017 Gabbard committed the cardinal sin of going against establishment orthodoxy when she
expressed skepticism regarding dubious claims of chemical weapons attacks by the Syrian
government in Khan Shaykhun, and, despite being right , was quickly
labeled an "Assad apologist."
She also made the egregious mistake of speaking the truth when she
said that the U.S. had been "waging a regime change war in Syria since 2011."
Nothing will get you a scarlet letter from the establishment faster than telling the truth
regarding America's thuggish empire.
As for compliant Kamala, speaking truth to power is not a sin with which she is intimately
familiar. Kamala is more of a kiss up and kick down kind of girl. She "kissed" up to former
Speaker of the California Assembly and San Francisco Mayor Willie
Brown and kicked down by trying to jail poor
parents of truant kids.
Another glaring difference between Tulsi Gabbard and Kamala Harris is that Gabbard is guided
by principle and Harris is guided by blind partisanship and personal ambition.
For instance, besides the Protect Women's Sports Act, this week Gabbard also dared to cross
the aisle by
introducing the Break Up Big Tech Act, which supported Trump's initiative to repeal Section
230, which gives legal immunity to large social media companies. Gabbard did this because it is
the right thing to do, even if Trump supports it.
As for Kamala, she is allergic to principles beyond personal ambition. Kamala will not take
on big tech, as they are her donor base and she is a junkie for their money and a corporate
power courtesan. One should not expect a Biden-Harris administration to move in any way shape
or form against Silicon Valley.
Another argument in favor of Gabbard's superiority over Harris is that the one time the two
women went head-to-head was in the Democratic primary debates, and Gabbard eviscerated
Harris so decisively that it stopped Harris' presidential campaign dead in its tracks.
This week's state of affairs proves that America is a madhouse, and the media, Time Magazine
and their ridiculous and grammatically incorrect "Person of the Year" selection included, are
funhouse mirrors used to further distort our already deranged sur-reality.
In these United States of the Insane, the inmates are running the asylum as American
militarism and corporate power are now deemed benign, it is declared gender doesn't exist, and
Kamala Harris is worthy of celebration while Tulsi Gabbard is deserving of denigration.
America always gets the leadership it deserves, and when Joe Biden falls, or more likely
gets pushed, down a flight of stairs and Queen Kamala ascends to the throne, we will get what
we deserve. And that certainly isn't a person of the quality and worth of Tulsi Gabbard, that's
for damn sure.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
carlus 1 day ago 11 Dec, 2020 04:23 PM
Good essay. My question is why she endorsed Biden, which immediately compromised her
intellectual honesty and contradicts her previous decisions to buck the DNC and powers that
be. It is puzzling and disturbing. The practical implications are that by so doing, she
didn't allow a chance for her growing supporters and the country to overcome impending,
rapidly approaching disaster, in many forms. In other words, Tulsi was the last hope and it
is now too late. She didn't realize this.
Hanonymouse carlus 1 hour ago 12 Dec, 2020 06:40 PM
Because she probably wants to run again in the future, so she has to keep the party happy.
TruthSpeak carlus 14 hours ago 12 Dec, 2020 05:55 AM
I was surprised she endorsed Biden, I did not know she did that. I felt she was the only hope
of sanity in this whole mess. I do hope she keeps pushing forward.
Anton Moric 1 day ago 11 Dec, 2020 03:42 PM
Spot on article that sums up the current situation in the USA quite well. Gabbard is a
rational hero, who is also strongly against the US Deep State's endless wars against the
perceived enemies of Israel. Another reason that the cabalists have unleashed their dogs on
her.
Rocky_Rambler Anton Moric 23 hours ago 11 Dec, 2020 08:33 PM
I agree this was very well-written, and right on the money. I loved the phrase, " the empty
pantsuit and monument to tokenism, Kamala Harris, and her chauffeur in the corporate Democrat
clown car, Joe Biden "
Richi777 1 day ago 11 Dec, 2020 03:54 PM
Good article. Tulsi Gabbard is certainly the one to watch for the next election. Although the
swamp and or the deep state might have other ideas.
skizex Richi777 14 hours ago 12 Dec, 2020 05:50 AM
Doesn't help that she is CFR
Russian_Bot Richi777 1 day ago 11 Dec, 2020 07:32 PM
In 4 years, it'll be, then, the incumbent President Kamala Harris and whoever the
establishment appointed to be No 2. Tulsi has no chance. I believe that by the next election,
the US is going to become, effectively, one-party nation. As of now, she is the only one who
could be a compromise figure for the centrists and moderates on both political sides. But
she's too independent and unpredictable for those who have high stakes in the future
elections outcome and are able to finance her campaign.
Je suis CHUMP 1 day ago 11 Dec, 2020 03:43 PM
"Only in a nation that had taken leave of its senses would Tulsi Gabbard be denigrated and
Kamala Harris be queen-in-waiting" Amen, Amen, Amen, Amen. I'm waiting for 2024 when Tulsi
Gabbard winning the presidential race, or VP position on Trump-Gabbard ticket.
Teodor Nitu Je suis CHUMP 22 hours ago 11 Dec, 2020 09:22 PM
"... VP position on Trump-Gabbard ticket." That's exactly why she endorsed Biden, to dispel
the notion that she was a 'Trump supporter in disguise', as she was beginning to be painted
by some leftist extremists.
carlus Je suis CHUMP 1 day ago 11 Dec, 2020 04:12 PM
Gabbard has talked to Trump about issues. I think she tried to convince him that the climate
crisis is real. He either believes this and lies about it for political reasons (she would
find this repulsive ), or doesn't believe it and therefore is (and she would have a problem
with this as well) too willingly ignorant to listen to reason.
Rolf001 1 day ago 11 Dec, 2020 05:10 PM
Speaking the Truth in Times of Universal Deceit is a Revolutionary Act (George Orwell). Tulsi
represents exactly what Orwell meant.
Jose Francisco 1 day ago 11 Dec, 2020 07:32 PM
love the pincipled Tulsi. altho i did lose respect for her for her endorsement of BIden.
still, i can forgive her, i mean, look at her, she's committed to the truth, brave and
beautiful.
BluDiva 8 hours ago 12 Dec, 2020 11:51 AM
I considered Gabbard one of the few, honest, intelligent politicians of our time. She invited
the wrath of her corrupt party, which stands for anything but honesty and intelligence.
However, her endorsement of Biden stands in strange opposition to her intellectual/political
persona.
bbob412 1 day ago 11 Dec, 2020 08:09 PM
The treatment of Tulsi Gabbard is a tell tale sign of how corrupt the DNC has become. She has
more integrity than the lot of them. It's scary how easy it is for the DNC to make good
people look evil. A little partisan politics and a lot of bad and misleading press goes a
long way in this country of half wits though.
TheFishh bbob412 22 hours ago 11 Dec, 2020 09:43 PM
The DNC is so backward and demented that it won't consider anything new to the point that it
will force-feed a candidate that isn't all that popular.
Happylistener 23 hours ago 11 Dec, 2020 08:25 PM
She is straight, she is honest ( as far as we can see) she's the guts to stand up to the
bullies, lots of them. She has an opinion that reflects the ideals and ideas of her targeted
voters. Why are the DNC so afraid of her ? She doesn't flop like Bernie, she's not afraid of
The Hillary mob. Unfortunately, she can't get the big bucks that get you into power. I wonder
why? No war, no bucks ! Keep at it Tulsi Gabbard. You have guts.
Midnight10 19 hours ago 12 Dec, 2020 12:15 AM
How very true. Unfortunately since both parties rely on their funding from the
military/industrial complex, there will never be a candidate that would be acceptable if they
were not a warmonger. She spoke truth to power and turned the drumbeating msm against her.
She would have made a difference as VP. Kamala has her own agenda, and seems to love the
sound of her own voice. Has alot in common with Trump. Has already told BiBi there will be no
preconditions when the US deals with Israel. May get a illegal settlement named after her
yet.
Gabbard, who's set to leave office at the end of her congressional term, previously
introduced a
resolution alongside GOP lawmaker Matt Gaetz (Florida) urging the government to drop its
charges against Snowden – who was indicted under the World War I-era Espionage Act for
his role in leaking classified material revealing illegal mass surveillance by the National
Security Agency (NSA). Though the antiquated law was originally intended to prosecute foreign
spies, it has been repeatedly wielded against journalists and whistleblowers.
Bill to stop vote-harvesting - ripe for fraud. Let's see where this independent stand
takes her into the bosom of her chosen political party. Can we trade Tulsi for Senator Lisa
Murkowski or Susan Collins?
You're right. Tulsi's bill is needed even though a lot of states already have election
laws against vote harvesting. North Carolina does, but it didn't stop the state GOP from
doing just that in a 2018 vote. This effort not only harvested absentee/mail in ballots, but
filled them out for their GOP candidates as well. Luckily, the state discovered the criminal
activity and threw the book at the culprits.
Further investigation revealed this may have been going on in North Carolina since at
least 2012. Yes, we must guard against his kind of voter fraud. Good on Tulsi for trying to
secure mail in/absentee voting. It helps negate some of the voter suppression methods like
closing voting places and limiting the number of voting machines in selected areas.
Tulsi is a force for good. She is also a die hard progressive with many positions
mirroring those espoused by Bernie and AOC. I hope, somehow, she can revive her political
future.
I see no political future for Tulsi in Hawaii. Of course, her father switched parties (Rep
to Dem) after getting elected to the state senate, so there is that precedent in the family.
But father Mike seems much more politically astute. Meanwhile her seat will be taken over by
progressive Kai Kahele, who in true Hawaii fashion got into the state senate by being
appointed to fill his father's seat when he died in office.
I just checked and found Tulsi has started a PAC so he's apparently not done with
politics. He remains a progressive and continues to support progressive candidates. I don't
see her fitting into the mainstream Democratic Party, but I certainly don't see her going
Republican. That would be a complete 180 from everything she professes to stand for. Perhaps
a third way.
"Her positions will evolve when she has entered the Republican Party"
Sir, that's why I hope Tulsi will not enter the Republican Party. Currently, the GOP party
representation in Congress is populated with cowards. No Republican there has the gut to say
the emperor has no cloth.
I hope she will become an independent candidate (with a small i).
@TTG Tulsi is only 39. She seems to be playing for time. She can afford to wait for the
current Pelosi/Chinton/Schumer/DCCC generation to age out and disappear. They seem hell bent
on "après nous le déluge". They're going to go all-in and will loose. Best to
stay far away from the "Jim Jones" election crew. The progressives hate her for not being
progressive. She has know-towed to them to keep from being banished because the Republican
party in Hawaii is like the Republican party in Portland, Oregon: vestigial. The "opposition"
to the mayor here, Ted Wheeler, the one who encourages the riots, is a hippie to his left.
Ugh... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Portland,_Oregon_mayoral_election
Will we ever return to a time when USSID 18 was adhered to by NSA? Sadly, our politicians or those who quest for power and stroke
won't let U.S. go back to that time of protections for all Americans.
9th Circuit Court of Appeals found the activity regarding NSA and its metadata collections, illegal.
"... In recent years, U.S. troops were killed not only in Iraq and Afghanistan, but also Syria, Kenya, Somalia, Yemen, and Niger. Few Americans could locate these countries on a map; fewer knew its soldiers fought there. Additionally, Pentagon pilots and proxies killed people in Libya, Pakistan, and elsewhere in West Africa without losing a single soldier. ..."
"... The campaigns in Somalia and Yemen best expose the absurd casualty inequity of modern American warfare. In the former, only a few U.S. service members have been killed in an 18-year intervention. Conversely, hundreds of thousands of Somalis died or were displaced as a direct or indirect result (an exacerbated famine , for example) of a largely U.S.-catalyzed war. In Yemen, just one American soldier died in combat, compared to more than 100,000 locals -- including 85,000 children starved to death -- in a terror campaign the Saudis couldn't wage without U.S. complicity . ..."
"... With unemployment sky-rocketing to Great Depression rates, and income inequality at Gilded Age levels , both holidays now "celebrate" egregious blood and treasure disparity. For example, sifting through the Department of Labor's statistics reveals that some 8,000 contractors have been killed in America's war zones. That outnumbers U.S. military fatalities. Since Washington has progressively privatized and outsourced its wars, perhaps Americans should also observe a Mercenary Memorial Day. ..."
"... Faced with unrecognizable brands of war, most people substitute nostalgia and myth. Grappling with war's reality has implications that are too disturbing. Far simpler and more satisfying is to commemorate long past sacrifices at Normandy and Iwo Jima, rather than more confounding losses in Niger and Iraq. The temptation persists even as the last World War II veterans pass; old notions of what combat is ..."
"... The United States has lost its ethical and strategic way. Riddled with a virus that has now killed more Americans than the Revolutionary, Mexican, Spanish, Indian, Philippine, Vietnam, Persian Gulf, Iraq, and Afghan Wars combined , this nation requires serious soul-searching. Reimagining its bookended summer celebrations might be a good start; but it won't be easy. ..."
Pandemic or no, resilient Americans will celebrate Memorial Day together. Be it through Zoom
or spaced six feet apart from ten or less loved ones at backyard cookouts, folks will find a
way. In these peculiar gatherings, is it still considered cynical to wonder if people will
spare much actual thought for American soldiers still dying abroad -- or question the
utility of America's forever wars? Etiquette aside, we think it's obscene not to.
Just as the coronavirus has
exposed systemic rot, this moment also reveals how obsolete common conceptions of U.S.
warfare truly are -- raising core questions about the holiday devoted to its sacrifices. The
truth is that today's "
way of war " is so abstract, distant, and short on (at least American) casualties as to be
nearly invisible to the public. With little to
show for it, Washington still directs bloody global campaigns, killing thousands of locals.
America has no space on its calendar to memorialize these victims: even the
children among them.
"Just as the coronavirus
exposed much internal systemic rot, this moment also reveals how obsolete common
conceptions of U.S. warfare truly are."
Eighteen years ago, as a cadet and young marine officer, we celebrated the first post-9/11
Memorial Day -- both brimming with enthusiasm for the wars we knew lay ahead. In the
intervening decades, for
individual yet strikingly
similar reasons, we ultimately
chose paths of dissent. Since then, we've
penned critical editorials around Memorial Days. These challenged the wars'
prospects ,
questioned the efficacy of the volunteer military, and
encouraged citizens to honor the fallen by creating fewer of them.
Little has changed, except how America fights. But that's the point: outsourcing
combat to machines, mercenaries, and militias rendered war so opaque that Washington wages it
absent public oversight or awareness -- and empathy. That's the formula for forever war.
In recent years, U.S. troops were killed not only in Iraq and Afghanistan, but also Syria,
Kenya, Somalia, Yemen, and Niger. Few Americans could locate these countries on a map; fewer
knew its soldiers fought there. Additionally, Pentagon pilots and proxies
killed people in Libya, Pakistan, and
elsewhere in West Africa without losing a single soldier.
The campaigns in Somalia and Yemen best expose the absurd casualty inequity of modern
American warfare. In the former, only a
few U.S. service members have been killed in an 18-year intervention. Conversely,
hundreds of thousands of Somalis died or were displaced as a direct or indirect result (an
exacerbated famine , for example) of a largely U.S.-catalyzed war. In Yemen, just
one American soldier died in combat, compared to
more than 100,000 locals -- including 85,000 children
starved to death -- in a terror campaign the Saudis couldn't wage without U.S.
complicity .
No one wants to see American troops killed, but a death disparity so stark stretches classic
definitions of combat. Yet for locals, it likely feels a whole lot like "real" war on
the business end of U.S. bombs and bullets.
So this year, given the stark reality that even a deadly pandemic -- and
pleas for global ceasefire -- hasn't
slowed Washington's war machine, it's reasonable to question the very concept of Memorial
Day. There are also important parallels with Labor Day -- the holiday bookend to today's
seasonal kick off. Just as memorializing America's obscenely lopsided battle deaths is
increasingly indecent, a federal holiday devoted to a labor movement the government has
aggressively eviscerated is deeply troubling.
With unemployment
sky-rocketing to Great Depression rates, and income inequality at Gilded Age
levels , both holidays now "celebrate" egregious blood and treasure disparity. For example,
sifting through the Department of Labor's
statistics reveals that some 8,000 contractors have been killed in America's war zones.
That
outnumbers U.S. military fatalities. Since Washington has progressively privatized and
outsourced its wars, perhaps Americans should also observe a Mercenary Memorial Day.
Widening the aperture unveils thousands more "non-combat" -- but war-related -- uniformed
deaths in desperate need of memorializing. From 2006-2018
alone , 3,540 active-duty service members took their own lives -- just a fraction of the
15-20 daily veteran
suicides -- and another 640 died in accidents involving substance-abuse. Each death is
unique, but studies
demonstrate that the combined effects of PTSD and moral injury -- these wars' "
signature wound " -- contributed to this massive loss of life. On a personal level, at
least four soldiers under our commands took their own lives, as have several friends. These are
real folks who left behind real loved ones.
Faced with unrecognizable brands of war, most people substitute nostalgia and myth.
Grappling with war's reality has implications that are too disturbing. Far simpler and more
satisfying is to commemorate long past sacrifices at Normandy and Iwo Jima, rather than more
confounding losses in
Niger and Iraq. The temptation persists even as the last World War II veterans pass; old
notions of what combat is die with them.
The United States has lost its ethical and strategic way. Riddled with a virus that has now
killed more Americans than the Revolutionary, Mexican, Spanish, Indian, Philippine,
Vietnam, Persian Gulf, Iraq, and Afghan Wars
combined , this nation requires serious soul-searching. Reimagining its bookended summer
celebrations might be a good start; but it won't be easy.
In a new take on an old tradition, perhaps it's proper to not only pack away the whites, but
don black as a memorial to a republic in peril.
Matthew Hoh is a member of the advisory boards of Expose Facts, Veterans For
Peace and World Beyond War. He previously served in Iraq with a State Department team and with
the U.S. Marines. He is a Senior Fellow with the Center for International Policy.
Congresswoman Tulsi
Gabbard (D-Hawaii) has chosen to let Hillary Clinton get away with calling her an agent of
the Kremlin, dropping the defamation lawsuit for the sake of party unity and defeating
President Donald Trump.
While Gabbard and her campaign "remain certain of the action's legal merit," the new reality
of the Covid-19 pandemic requires them to "focus their time and attention on other priorities,
including defeating Donald Trump in 2020, rather than righting the wrongs here," her
attorney Dan Terzian wrote in the court filing withdrawing the lawsuit on Wednesday.
It was a far cry from the fiery tone of the original complaint, filed in January, accusing
Clinton of lying "publicly, unambiguously, and with obvious malicious intent" when she claimed
Gabbard was "the favorite of the Russians," in an October 2019 interview.
Gabbard's withdrawal of the defamation claim against Clinton clearly represents the final
stage of 'bending the knee' to the party.....
I never mentioned or voiced any support for Trump or Pelosi, and speaking of straw, you
probably don't even realize that your response is a textbook example of a straw man argument
which involves refuting an argument that was not actually presented. Well done.
I live in Hawaii and know what my neighbors think. I'm glad Gabbard is back here and
making a difference instead of wasting more time on the pointless theatre of the DNC. I don't
like the Biden support but name one serious candidate who fought the MIC these primaries or
got 5% of the MSM hostility that Gabbard took. That would be no one. Your disappointment is
of no concern to the people of Hawaii.
Like I've said before. I'll wait to hear about the Biden issue from the candidate herself
before breaking out the tar and feathers. Right now she's got more important things to do
that satisfying random bloggers.
I am fine with Tulsi bailing out for her community and that is precisely the most sincere
thing to do. I applaud that move.
Endorsing Biden at any time? NO WAY> that man is a republican in drag, a scumbag in a
suit, a thief in in a cassock,a creep in the vestry, a carpetbagger backing fascist Ukraine
and stealing from their people. He and his decrepit son stole the USA and IMF loans and left
the Ukrainian people to pay them off. She endorsed that shit.
Silence would have been the appropriate action and tactically correct until after the
Convention if she was politically intent to await the process between the B and the B.
In
August and
November I wrote about the strangeness of United States House of Representatives member and
then 2020 Democratic presidential nomination candidate Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) regularly playing
up her 16-plus years and counting employment in the United States military, and other
Americans' service in the US military as well, as a virtue while she at the same time makes
opposing major actions of that military, including the carrying out of certain wars, a focus of
her congressional work and campaign.
Jimmy Dore, who has similar concerns about Gabbard's rhetoric promoting the virtue of
service in the US military, asked Gabbard about this in an interview with Gabbard at his The
Jimmy Dore Show in March. In the interview focused largely on Gabbard's announcing , upon her
dropping out of the Democratic presidential nomination race, that she is supporting Joe Biden
for president, Dore asked several tough questions in an effort to induce Gabbard to address the
matter directly. Here is the initial exchange between Dore and Gabbard on the topic, with Dore
twice attempting to elicit a clear explanation from Gabbard:
DORE: So, I just wanted to talk with you a little bit more about antiwar veterans. So, a lot
of veterans and antiwar veterans watch this show, and I meet them when we do events and
everything. And they wanted me to ask you this. They say a lot of antiwar veterans say they
are not proud to have served, that they are sorry to have taken part, and they offer apology
to the countries that they occupied and the people that are living there, and that
participating in these wars is only a service to weapons manufacturers and war profiteers.
So, what do you say to that?
GABBARD: I respect every veteran -- those who make those statements and those who express
their pride in serving our country. I am personally I am proud to wear this country's
uniform. I am grateful for the privilege of being able to serve. And it is those experiences
that I have had throughout my service that have motivated me to dedicate all of my energy
towards bringing about the political change in our leadership that actually honors the great
sacrifice, selflessness, and courage that our men and women in uniform and that our veterans
lay on the line. I think that it's important to draw that line of distinction between those
who serve and wear the uniform and who salute the flag versus the politicians who are
dishonoring that service through the policies that they are advocating for.
DORE: So, I mean it seems to me that soldiers are not fighting for the safety and security
of this country when they go over to places like Iraq, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan. They're
actually achieving the opposite. even in fighting the War on Terror, where it's observed that
for every civilian killed we create two more jihadis. And so, I mean, it just seems, given
your piercing criticisms of these corporate interventions, can you square that circle for me
-- how you can be proud to serve in things that you call out for being wrong?
GABBARD: I'm proud to serve our country. I am angered by the politicians who needlessly
send our troops into harms way to fight in wars that don't make us any safer. There are
missions that our troops are sent on to go and defeat ISIS and al-Qaeda that are focused on
making the American people safe, and those are missions that should continue to defeat that
threat that is posed to our national security and foreign policy. But, you're right, there
are a lot of missions in whether it's continued deployments in Afghanistan without any clear
objective or any clear goal that actually serves our country's security interests or, you
know, regime change wars like we've in Iraq and Syria and Libya and other countries that
actually undermine our national security interests. So, there is a difference and a
distinction, especially when you know, when you understand that it's the politicians who are
making these decisions and it's why I'm focusing my efforts on bringing about that change
there to truly honor them and their service.
Later in the interview, Dore returned to the topic, again seeking to obtain from
Gabbard a coherent explanation while presenting his concern that Gabbard's promotion of the
virtue of being in the US military can encourage other people to choose employment in the US
government's war machine:
DORE: So, I just have one more question. So, a couple months ago there's these kids who live
across the street from me. I don't know how, they're like 16 through 19, and they're out
washing their car, and then three recruiters jumped out of their car and started recruiting
them to go fight in these bogus wars. And, so, Stef and I went out, and we started talking to
the kids, and we said: "You don't have to listen to these guys; tell these guys to get lost."
And, so, it made me think, you know, everything that you touch you make it a little more
attractive, so, are you worried that people are joining these bogus wars because you made
joining a little more attractive?
GABBARD: No. I'm not. There's great honor in serving our country, and, whether you're a
kid who's graduating high school or you're someone of any age and you make that decision to
go and serve our country, no matter the political circumstances, that is a very rare and
special thing. I also respect those who say, 'No, I won't join the military because I don't
want to be in that position to have to go and fight in a war that a politician sends me to go
and fight." And I respect people's decisions on both ends of the spectrum. But, there is no
honor lost in those who make that decision, raising their right hand to say "I'm willing to
lay my life down for my country and the safety and well-being of the American people." And
that's a decision that's motivated by love.
Watch these exchanges between Dore and Gabbard, and the complete interview, here:
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Jka28F9ldBg
Good for Dore for trying three times in the interview to elicit from Gabbard a clear,
logical answer about this important apparent contradiction at the heart of one of her major
areas of focus in politics. All he received back was more of the same nonsense rhetoric Gabbard
has been putting out for so long, the same rhetoric the logic of which Dore was
challenging.
Luckily for Gabbard, few other people will broach the subject Dore broached. The social
convention that everyone should thank people in the military for their service and shut up
about any criticisms they may have about such service is so strong that few interviewers have
the guts to question Gabbard about this elephant in the room.
"... Because Biden is the ultimate "anti-Gabbard", she should have endorsed either Bernie, or even Trump, but instead she endorsed a morally corrupt warmonger, a total pawn for the MIC. ..."
"... What, exactly, did Tulsi owe to Bernie? I don’t recall him defending her from the Russiagate bots – even Yang did far more of that than Bernie. ..."
"... Bernie had instead been too busy sucking up to the young careerist SJWs in his movement and to the Russiagate freaks, rather appropriate that he was Russiagated out of the nomination, LOL. ..."
"... Very sad to see. I just figure they got to her in some way through blackmail, threatening her family, etc. Seems rather out of character otherwise. The description of Biden is apt, real scum he is. ..."
"... The virus, whatever it’s origin, has provided the opportunity to revoke whatever is left of the rights of the populace, the best since 9-11. ..."
"... Biden was main actor in starting two wars. War in Libya and war in Syria . On top of it Biden did have a fishy deals in Ukraine and China. ..."
"... She could have waited until the bitter end to endorse the Democratic candidate, if she wanted to keep her word. Or she could have not done so, in the same way that a soldier need not follow an illegal order, or anyone with a conscience would avoid endorsing a committed and repeated warmonger. ..."
"... It is academic for me to argue which party is the dumbest, since I believe both are part of the Deep State. But currently the dems have it over the repubs in stupidity. Gabbard was the best in a horrible lineup. She was a one trick pony…antiwar…but a great trick. I know about the promise to endorse the nominee…but Biden is brain dead. ..."
It was pretty clear to most observers that Tulsi Gabbard, being the only real "peace
candidate" would never be allowed to get the nomination, nevermind make it into the White
House. It was also clear that Tulsi, for all her very real qualities, simply did not have what
it takes to take on "The Swamp". Still, in spite of this all, her candidacy and campaign were
like a huge pitcher of cool water in the middle of an immense and dry desert. Her uniqueness
amongst all the candidate is what make her betrayal even more painful for those who respected
or even supported her. Once it became clear that she would never get the nomination, not only
did she not run as an independent (something which Hillary seems to fear a lot), she endorsed
Uncle Joe, the clearly senile, totally corrupt and generally repugnant frontman for the Clinton
gang. This endorsement of Biden is something which she did not have to do, but she did it.
When the DNC stole the nomination from Sanders, he did not lead a protest or run as an
independent, he endorsed Hillary. I always considered him a fraud for this (and many other)
reasons. Now Tulsi Gabbard is doing the same thing, which probably is a good indicator that the
Democratic Party is evil and corrupt to the core, which is hardly big news, but which is
dramatically confirmed by Gabbard's profoundly immoral decision. Why do I say that?
Because Biden is the ultimate "anti-Gabbard", she should have endorsed either Bernie, or
even Trump, but instead she endorsed a morally corrupt warmonger, a total pawn for the
MIC.
At the end of the day, she mostly betrayed herself, and that is the saddest aspect of this
debacle.
What, exactly, did Tulsi owe to Bernie? I don’t recall him defending her from the
Russiagate bots – even Yang did far more of that than Bernie.
Bernie had instead been too busy sucking up to the young careerist SJWs in his movement
and to the Russiagate freaks, rather appropriate that he was Russiagated out of the
nomination, LOL.
All the candidates, including Tulsi, had committed to supporting the winner and
Bernie’s odds by the time Tulsi endorsed Biden were very close to zero. It is ironic,
as noted by Michael Tracey, that it is generally Tulsi’s most eager supporters who were
most inclined to dismiss her own words.
Very sad to see. I just figure they got to her in some way through blackmail, threatening
her family, etc. Seems rather out of character otherwise. The description of Biden is apt,
real scum he is.
The virus, whatever it’s origin, has provided the opportunity to revoke whatever is
left of the rights of the populace, the best since 9-11.
Turkey lacks either the will, or the capability
At this point they probably have way lower capability than their numbers suggest.
They’ve had enough to deal with just Kurd guerillas. Their approach is NATO style
throwing a lot of ordinance at targets. Don’t count on them for anything.
Trump will wipe the floor with Biden. Biden was main actor in starting two wars. War in Libya
and war in Syria . On top of it Biden did have a fishy deals in Ukraine and China.
Biden is a dead duck with slow wit. He has no chance.
She could have waited until the bitter end to endorse the Democratic
candidate, if she wanted to keep her word.
Or she could have not done so, in the same way that a soldier need not follow an illegal
order, or anyone with a conscience would avoid endorsing a committed and repeated
warmonger.
This is my comment from a year ago, if Saker censor read it, he wouldn’t be surprised.
It just means his “analysis” is worth shit.
How can anyone who is a CFR member or serves two rounds in Iraq based on Colin Powell be
anyone good? How the fuck?
All his writing (description of the facts (after the facts) of what everyone can see) brings
nothing and any forecasts are wrong (love for Tulsi, fall of Ukraine, nuclear war threatening
as an excuse for Russia’s submission to the Empire).
Saker was over when he began to censor those who disagree with him and who, as you can see,
are right. Pride walks before falling. Fuck him and his great Tulsi love!
It is academic for me to argue which party is the dumbest, since I
believe both are part of the Deep State. But currently the dems have it over the repubs in
stupidity. Gabbard was the best in a horrible lineup. She was a one trick
pony…antiwar…but a great trick. I know about the promise to endorse the
nominee…but Biden is brain dead.
If I had known that she had promised to endorse the Democratic nominee I would never have had
thoughts about her candidacy. since she was my choice based on her anti regime change stance
I knew she didn’t have a chance. She had watched Bernie get deprived of the nomination
in 2016. It was worrisome that she was a former CFR member. It didn’t bother me that
she didn’t get into 9/11 as that is death for anyone who wants the system to take them
seriously. It did bother me that she didn’t confront the Israeli – whatever you
want to call it. Especially as the media ignored her and the party worked against her. She
was an attractive candidate and seemed sincere but the Dem voters never considered her. so
fooled again. then again we here all know that the President only has so much power against
the national security evolving police state and MIC and global deep state. If they use it
then they only have to watch the Zapruder film for their near future or their loved ones.
Tulsi’s problem is that she thinks GIs SHOULD NOT REFUSE TO DEPLOY OUTSIDE OF THE
COUNTRY LIKE WE DID 53 YEARS AGO. She thinks THEY HAVE A DUTY TO GO!!! She probably
doesn’t even know who Smedley Butler is. She wants to end the Regime Change Wars but
has no idea how to do it!!! So now she is supporting a Warmonger who just had a #Me To charge
and his accuser has been labeled a RUSSIAN AGENT AND WAS DOXXED.
“At the end of the day, she mostly betrayed herself, and that is the saddest aspect of
this debacle.”
It would be sad in everyday life, but national politics and everyday life have almost nothing
in common.
And that is all the truer when discussing the national politics of the United States, which
may fairly be characterized as ruthless and totally corrupt.
Tulsi Gabbard is a young, intelligent, appealing woman who wants a political career ahead of
her.
Her prospects would instantly drop to zero if she did not endorse the party’s
candidate.
I find it disappointing that she did so, but I find the entire American political scene
disappointing.
I am not even clear why a person like Tulsi would want to run in the United States.
Perhaps it indicates an underlying level of naivete?
Still some lingering belief in the high school civics class vision of American politics?
Stuff about guys in frock coats pledging their sacred honor?
Bringing good intentions to Washington is bit like Jesus’s statement about throwing
pearls before swine.
I am not even sure what Tulsi was doing because her ability to change anything important is
also about zero – even in the imaginary world of becoming president.
The game is fixed. The stakes are so immense with just the military/security arm of the
establishment burning through a trillion dollars a year.
It virtually all exists to serve plutocrats and empire.
None of those powerful people want a “change” candidate.
The last president who actually thought he could challenge the American establishment left
half his head on a street in Dallas.
@AKAHorace Not a chance. Joe Biden represents the old Neo-liberal wing of the Democratic
party. Tulsi is an anti-war progressive.
The other thing you have to consider is Joe is old and senile. It is not certain he would
finish out his 4-year term if elected. The DNC will make sure they pick someone they are
willing to see in power in case Joe bows out. There were paranoid rumors that it would be HRC
but I don’t think this will fly with the public. Most likely a moderate woman. Kamala
Harris (in a cynical bid to get the Black vote). Amy Klobuchar.
Whether Tulsi ‘had what it takes’ to ‘drain the swamp’ will never be
known. The DNC made sure to take away her voice from the debates after she wiped the floor
with Kamala Harris in an early debate. She got next to no publicity from the msm, but she was
certainly better than any of the alternatives.
Like you, I was very disappointed when she supported Biden the war monger and fraud artist.
Regarding Tulsi Gabbard, from the begining, I was (possibly) the only person who thought she
was completely Fake . She is full of American B ** S “Patriotism” a.k.a.
Fascism. I mean, if she is quitting politics, she should have endorsed Sanders and starves
the self-promoted Zionist, warmongering, corrupt Biden of crucial votes in several
progressive counties in the US.
Medicare for All is not a popular issue with democrats.
Nevada culinary union lays into Sanders supporters after health care backlash
The powerful group said the candidate’s backers attacked it for criticizing
Sanders’ “Medicare for All” proposal.
I sent some money to Gabbard and have no regrets. The American people betrayed her not the
other way around. Why shouldn’t she endorse Biden, an endorsement* is a meaningless
gesture, political survival is the most important thing for her. Thanks for trying Tulsi.
* In the US an endorsement only has meaning if the endorser has some sort of political
machine to get a candidate elected or at least raise money. Gabbard had none except maybe
veterans.
When the DNC stole the nomination from Sanders, he did not lead a protest or run as an
independent, he endorsed Hillary. I always considered him a fraud for this (and many other)
reasons.
We should cut both Bernie and Tulsi some slack; when you go up against a machine whose
principle actors have a documented triple-digit body-count, you either kiss the ring or sleep
with the fishes.
Tulsi Gabbard was a “faux” anti-war candidate , when it became known that she was
a member of the Council on Foreign Relations they scrubbed her name from the site.
I recently receive an email from her where she came out in support of warmonger Joe Biden
and blamed Al Qaeda for the 9/11 false flag attacks
It’s all Kabuki theater and the democratic and republican parties operate like crime
families and have proven once again that they are “two wings of the same bird of prey
“. The US is a pathocracy, kakistocracy, cryptocracy, plutocracy all rolled into
one.
Now Tulsi Gabbard is doing the same thing, which probably is a good indicator that the
Democratic Party is evil and corrupt to the core
The Tulsitards will get mad at you but she exposed herself as a fraud. Biden’s been
a big warmonger on the left and she endorsed him. Biden is one of the biggest assholes in the
swamp and attacks and insults voters who asks him fair questions and she calls him a
unifier.
If Bernie was for real then he’d run as an independent instead of cucking and
endorsing Biden.
Recall that last election wherein Tulsi stepped down from a vaunted position within the D
Party Establishment to, IIRC, support Bernie. Any case, whatever it was, it was a choice
which indicated a different and principled politician - in the person of Tulsi - or at least
she appeared to be an individual with a few principles.
Now this Biden endorsement is decidedly unprincipled, because Biden is, without question,
a warhawk, a self-proclaimed proud Zionist, and a persistent enabler of the one percent - be
it "accidental" or be it brazen with forethought and full intent. Biden has a colorful
history of being a key figure in the dismantlement of the middle class and the further
impoverishment of the working poor.
I am disappointed in Tulsi Gabbard.
Though she'd have been torn to bits with the exposure of her association with the unusual
religious cult. Makes one curious as to how she has gotten as far as she has in mainstream
politics.
Tulsi on mask shortage-"It's hard to imagine how this could be
happening in America." Really? You're surprised the corrupt two-party that you insist we choose between got us here?
Andrew Yang just
admitted that he endorsed Biden cause he got offered a position in his cabinet should Biden become president. Tulsi of
course would never do that XD .
I wonder how
strong the Progressive movement would've been if careerists like Gabbard and Warren stayed away and the front was
unified from the beginning.
When Jimmy started his live video the day she announced
supporting Biden, I said to myself "I bet anything he blames Bernie for her dropping out and supporting Biden." Low
and behold, he did.
6:56
"which is something I always said I would do btw,
that I would support the eventual democratic nominee" Am I living in a parallel dimension? The primary is not
finished yet, you can still endorse Biden when it will be over if he wins the primary but endorse Bernie for the
moment. Is it that hard? Ho right, I forgot, the primary is rigged and we all know that Biden the senile kid diddler
and liar will be the nominee one way or another. Fucked up, but she's not helping. She probably knows she'll be
kicked out of politics if she does not endorse biden and cares more about her career than doing the right thing.
War is ingrained into US society, "Thankyou for your
service" says it all. Heroes in America are obviously those who go to war at the behest of the zionists and the
corporations.
"The scope of
the effects of this are difficult to comprehend at this time..." This is truly amazing that someone in the government
has the audacity to blame a virus for people's inability to "make rent" when it was them that created the current
hysteria and panic. There is a pandemic. I agree. But so far counting all of the cases that we know about, it is no
where even close to the season flue that we see every year! And the government is shutting down businesses! It is a
shame that they are using the current situation to further the idea that people are dependent on the government to
survive! How far we as a nation and a people have fallen from the ideals that created this nation in the first place! I
am disgusted!
Like Bernie,
Tulsi is just another TWO FACED Globalist Presstitute. Tulsi says her platform is to stop regime change and bring are
troops home! Why does she then endorse Biden who supports regime change and keeping troops in the middle east? Tulsi
says she does this to defeat Trump but Trump campaigned to stop regime change and bring are troops home!
Tulsi betrayed her supporters by endorsing Biden. She essentially unconditionally capitulated tot he neocon wing of the Dems. In
this sense she proved to a be a turncoat. To me, she's a sell-out. her campaign filled with military-based patriotism, flag-waving,
and pledge-of-allegiance rah rah USA cheerleading. It gave me the creeps, quite frankly.
Is happening during a time when Trump has the bullhorn everyday during a financial crisis and a terrifying pandemic while Joe has
abdicated his role as the presumptive Democratic nominee to counter the Presidents narrative and reassure the American people . The
optics are bizarre and politically unsustainable. Into to this growing narrative, the principled Tulsi ends her campaign and endorses
who? The missing Joe. The timing of her endorsement is peculiar indeed.
Also was she threatened or coerced in any way? Because earlier in the vid she certainly implies there was no way she could fight
the DNC's version of City Hall.
The first time I saw Tulsi Gabbard in action was during a 2018 House Veteran' Affairs Health subcommitee hearing on Capitol Hill.
She she was going up one side of a bland-faced Veterans Affairs (VA) representative and down the other for stalling on burn pits
help for sick veterans. My head jerked up as I was banging out notes on my laptop. Up until then it had been the usual staid affair
-- VA bureaucrats mewling the same old pablum about tasks forces and blue ribbon studies -- meanwhile an untold number of vets had
been exposed to toxins from the burn pits in Iraq and Afghanistan, and had been warning of irrevocable health effects, even dying,
since 2007. Then the air in the packed hearing room started to crackle. We don't want to hear about your studies, the Democratic
Congresswoman from Hawaii said, her voice piercing the room. We want action.
I scrambled to Google her. This young, capable congresswoman cutting straight through the bullshit was an Iraq War veteran! No
wonder. As a journalist covering the swamp since 1999 it was easy to fall into jaded complacency about partisan politicians grandstanding
on their hobby horses with no longterm interest in fixing anything. But recent veterans who had become members of Congress seemed
to address their new roles like they would a tactical mission. In her case, it was veterans' health, and there was nothing inauthentic
in how she was approaching the witnesses in front of her, or the issue at hand.
In the intervening years she became known as a non-interventionist and independent thinker who was skeptical of her own party's
embrace of the national security status quo and the military industrial complex. By the time she launched her campaign for the Democratic
presidential nomination and started talking about ending endless "regime change wars" on the debate stage, the Washington skeptics
and non-interventionists on the Right, particularly at this magazine, had already taken notice. TAC writers like
Scott Ritter and
Daniel Larison became
a vanguard here against the establishment's spiteful and petty fusillade over her diplomatic visit to Bashar Assad, her deviation
from the party's talking points on Russia, and even Trump.
Yet when she delivered the K.O. against Kamala Harris
in the second Democratic debate, cooly pointing out the California Senator's hypocrisy on criminal justice, it was the most satisfying
moment up until then or since. If forced to watch every single moment of every single debate this season it would be worth every
second just to see Gabbard make Harris twist in the wind and eventually deflate her candidacy with that one brilliant stroke. Ditto
for her later
take-down of Pete Buttigieg, a candidate using his veteran status in a completely different way, as TAC's Gil Barndollar (also
a recent vet)
points
out . This was the steely focus and yes, righteousness, that I saw in that House hearing room in 2018, and served her well on
the stage among her political adversaries, who didn't care that she checked all the boxes (a woman of color, the first Samoan-American
and Hindu to run for president). She was "not of the body" when it came to the party line. She would never belong.
It served her well when she
called out Madame Hillary, though that likely brought the death knell to her hopes for the Democratic nod. If she hadn't drawn
the full force of the bee hive before, attacking the Queen Bee proved fatal.
She left the race officially today having performed well off-the-radar in the early and recent primaries. But unlike many of
the puppets who called themselves candidates in this dreary Democratic display, Gabbard leaves with her pride, her integrity, and
her independence intact. Some may balk at her endorsement of Biden, a man who voted for the war that she despises, who serves as
a symbol of the partisan corruption she had pledged to overcome. She has her reasons. We just hope she won't fade away, as she won't
be running for re-election in the fall.
What has she left us? Proof that there are politicians who make "transpartisan" seem real and worthy, and not just another faddish
concept to be abused for political gain. She leaves us with the sense that not all pols are in it for the power, but for weightier
goals, like veterans' health, and bringing an end to an entrenched, hubristic foreign policy that sends young men and women like
Gabbard into wars we cannot win. She was the only one to bring a personal and unyielding take on that to the debate stage and into
our living rooms, and for that, we should be grateful.
Kelley Beaucar Vlahos, executive editor, has been writing for TAC for the last decade, focusing on national security, foreign
policy, civil liberties and domestic politics. She served for 15 years as a Washington bureau reporter for FoxNews.com, and at WTOP
News in Washington from 2013-2017 as a writer, digital editor and social media strategist. She has also worked as a beat reporter
at Bridge News financial wire (now part of Reuters) and Homeland Security Today, and as a regular contributor at Antiwar.com. A native
Nutmegger, she got her start in Connecticut newspapers, but now resides with her family in Arlington, Va.
Her statement endorsing Biden proves all this about propaganda about her being "trans partisan" whatever that means, and not out
for personal power are false. Gabbard clearly still wants a future career connected to the Democratic establishment.
Tulsi destroyed Kamala Harris' campaign and gave the antiwar movement a voice in the Democratic primary. She never had a chance
in hell of being the nominee, but she played a weak hand with wits, courage and a strong heart. In a better party--country--she'd
be one of the top tier candidates.
Instead she'll have to settle for being a hero to folks like me.
The Daily Kos crowd hated her guts ("Fake social liberal! Dictator lover! Trump appeaser!") and aggressively raised funds for
her primary opponent, so I'm not sure her House seat was all that safe for her anymore.
Reagan's criticism of Carter's Panama Canal Treaty got him a rebuke from the Duke himself. John Wayne wrote a letter to Reagan
calling him a liar over his criticism of the treaty. Not sure how the spat became public, but that was one of the first things
that started warming my heart towards Wayne.
She probably should have dropped out after New Hampshire and endorsed Sanders. Frankly, Sanders should have been working behind
the scenes to get a joint Yang/Gabbard endorsement before or after Nevada. Not that she is well known outside of academic or feminist
circles, but rolling up their endorsement with that of black feminist Barbara Smith before South Carolina might have blunted the
Pete/Amy/Beto bit of political theater for Biden a little bit, if not the Clyburn endorsement.
1) Tulsi started going off the rails halfway through primary and her position on gay rights was going to be a problem for liberal
attacks along with her continued defending Assad in general. (We should stay out of Syria years ago but Assad is terrible.)
2) I suspect it helped Reagan in 1980 with criticism of Carter's Panama Canal Treaty with most voters. Yea he took some flack
for it but it helped Reagan criticizing Carter's foreign policy weakness.
3) I see Sanders problem closer to Matt Yglesias view that Sanders had 30 - 35% of the Party voters and needed to do more to
win the other 65%. He was over estimated his WWC support from 2016 (as opposed to anti-HRC vote when Primary was practically over)
and Sanders was going to have problems with candidate winnowing.
And Sanders really failed to gain support from Southern African-American voters who led Biden's comeback.
Assad MAY be terrible to ISIS sympathizers, but he also doesn't support the genocide of Syria's Christian,Shia,Ismaili,Druze and
Alawite minorities. The genocidal al-Qaeda/ISIS affiliates have ravaged Syria's minority populations while getting support from
Israel. Whenever AQ/ISIS are getting overrun by the Christian-led Syrian Arab Army, Israel is always there to provide air support
to Al Qaeda and ISIS. Tulsi, of course is a big supporter of Israel and does not address Israel's role in the war against Syria's
minority populations. She is comfortable with her hypocritical stance.
I don't remember Gabbard ever "defending" Assad politically or personally. At most, I thought she expressed support for his government
in its military conflict with ISIS and the Al-Nusra Front.
Don't disagree with you about Sanders. I do believe he was the strongest general election candidate, but the majority of the
Democratic electorate has clearly moved back to the center and a desire for continuity with the Clinton/Obama/Biden past, which
is utter foolishness and stupidity on their part.
I don't need to know anything more than she endorsed establishment Joe over the Hill Biden, the warmonger's warmonger. None of
their professional pols are ever going to do anything but cave to the swamp of the status quo. Oligarchy Uber Alles. She just
nailed the lid shut on her supposed integrity. Hey, Bernie's next.
And coronavirus is of no matter, except to use as an excuse to get Donald Trump, who really did call out and try to stop some
wars, to no avail. History is full of lying politicians who got elected by promising to keep us out of wars, then started them
as soon as the votes were counted.
Gabbard is the most exciting politician in a generation imo. She is consistently highly strategic in her moves, and kept her antiwar
platform in the public eye on a tiny budget as far as was feasible while the caucus season still had life and attention. It is
clear the corporate Dems are firmly in control and have cleverly manouvered Biden to be the face of the DNC. With that scenario
and likely no convention or media for the next few months it was smart, as the only life long Democrat in the field, to 'support'
Biden (confounding the brainwashed Russia/Syria/India conspiracy theorists) as the candidate, just as she vowed to do at the start
of her campaign.
The battle is over. the corporate Dems won, but will likely lose the war to Trump in November. It's possible the entire aged field
of political operatives that control the 'beehive' will be history by this time next year, and as the DNC begins to reform, root
out venal corruption and reconstitute Gabbard's star may well rise again.
The other distinct possibility is that the oligarch Bloomberg will replace Mrs Clinton as the majordomo of the DNC and with his
Hawkfish Cambridge Analytica style machine will steamroller some sort of quasi fascist party into power post Covid19 low key (I
hope) martial law. Bloomberg was clever to inject 44 million - pocket lint in his 55 billion - just before super Tuesday to destroy
Sanders the strawman social democrat while standing down other corporate puppet candidates.
I hope Gabbard doesn't become a TV bobblehead like Yang. That would be dispiriting.
Peace.
nice article but the title is misleading. What she actually did was give a voice to the voiceless, and changed the dialogue
in America regarding foreign policy and interventionalist wars. The way our leaders think about "regime change" wars has shifted
greatly in part because of the efforts of Tulsi Gabbard. Her continuing to highlight the extremely crucial areas of corruption
and misgovernance that are ruining our country is what she has, is, and will continue to do for us.
This puff piece won't do. Tulsi has chosen to stay with a gang that has no use for her. "She has her reasons" for endorsing
Biden. Folks have their reasons for doing a lot of things. Tulsi could have dispensed with this nonsense of a Presidential run
and been the leader of a movement that would have posed a challenge to these failing and merging political parties. She may
be inspiring on a personal level but, in the immortal words of The Four Tops, "It's the same old song, just a different feeling
since you been gone."
I was sad to see so many hit pieces this past year portraying Tulsi as some sort of Trump appeaser or traitor who would meet with
Assad etc. As a peacemaker, she stood very little chance in the 2020 race. As a female Hindu surfer war veteran peacenik who could
sing John Lennon songs with her partner, she was so strikingly unique that people didn't have a box to put her in. With veteran
health being one of her primary concerns, she would have been ideal for the age of Corona virus. I can't imagine her disbanding
the pandemic response team two years before the worst pandemic in 500 years! Thank you Kelly Vlahos for paying tribute to this
remarkable leader. Let's hope Tulsi is far from finished. 2020 is going to be a year when America is taken out to the woodshed
and taught a humbling lesson about mortality, the frailty of life and the need to respect the whole planet. Tulsi might be just
the person to lead the country as it rises up from the ashes.
Sounds quite innocuous, even virtuous, right? Except, you do not mention she is also a supporter of Hindoo Fascism/Nationalism,
as a supporter of the fascist Indian organisation called RSS. Just recently she tried to whitewash the muslim genocide (even if
small level this time) in New Delhi, with her dissembling about some self-perceived "Hinduphobia."
I suppose, as long as it does not affect whites and christians and westerners, her hindoo fascism is of little consequence
to you? Let them "moozlims" worry about such things, yeah?
Those disbursements to wage earners are vital for the social cohesion to remain in place.
I thought Tulsi Gabbard championing that minimum basic income strategy was essential as
well.
I empathies totally with USians that are trapped in the vulgar exploitative nightmare
of the usury in that country . Debt Jubilee for all under $100,000 income would be a
start. But that might create a vulgar backlash as well.
The naked ferocity of capitalism in the USA is truly a fearsome thing.
Gabbard is angling for the VP position as Biden mentioned he's looking for a woman as a
running mate. She better hope Biden remember what he said. I wonder what Biden's criteria for
his candidates?
Hmm...
"... "Congress/staff who dumped stocks after private briefings on impending coronavirus epidemic should be investigated and prosecuted for insider trading," ..."
"... "Members of Congress should not be allowed to own stocks." ..."
"... "stomach churning," ..."
"... "For a public servant it's pretty hard to imagine many things more immoral than doing this," ..."
"... "Richard Burr had critical information that might have helped the people he is sworn to protect. But he hid that information and helped only himself." ..."
"... "If you find out about a nation-threatening pandemic and your first move is to adjust your stock portfolio you should probably not be in a job that serves the public interest," ..."
"... "calling for immediate investigations" ..."
"... "for possible violations of the STOCK Act and insider trading laws." ..."
"... Think your friends would be interested? Share this story! ..."
In a rare moment of bipartisanship, commenters from all sides have demanded swift punishment for US
senators who dumped stock after classified Covid-19 briefings. Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard has called
for criminal prosecution.
As chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Richard Burr (R-North Carolina) has received daily
briefings on the threat posed by Covid-19 since January. Burr insisted to the public that America was
ready to handle the virus, but sold up to $1.5 million in stocks on February 13, less than a week
before the stock market nosedived, according to Senate
filings
. Immediately before the sale, Burr wrote an
op-ed
assuring Americans that their government is
"better prepared than ever
" to handle
the virus.
After the sale, NPR
reported
that he told a closed-door meeting of North Carolina business leaders that the virus
actually posed a threat
"akin to the 1918 pandemic."
Burr does not dispute the NPR report.
In a tweet on Saturday, former 2020 presidential candidate and Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard called for
criminal investigations.
"Congress/staff who dumped stocks after private briefings on impending
coronavirus epidemic should be investigated and prosecuted for insider trading,"
she wrote.
"Members of Congress should not be allowed to own stocks."
Congress/staff who dumped stocks after private briefings on impending
coronavirus epidemic should be investigated & prosecuted for insider trading (the STOCK Act). It
is illegal & abuse of power. Members of Congress should not be allowed to own stocks.
https://t.co/rbVfJxrk3r
Burr was not the only lawmaker on Capitol Hill to take precautions, it was reported. Fellow
Intelligence Committee member Dianne Feinstein (D-California) and her husband sold off more than a
million dollars of shares in a biotech company five days later, while Oklahoma's Jim Inhofe (R) made a
smaller sale around the same time. Both say their sales were routine.
Sen. Kelly Loeffler (R-Georgia) attended a Senate Health Committee briefing on the outbreak on
January 24. The very same day, she began offloading stock, dropping between $1.2 and $3.1 million in
shares over the following weeks. The companies whose stock she sold included airlines, retail outlets,
and Chinese tech firm Tencent.
She did, however, invest in cloud technology company Oracle, and Citrix, a teleworking company
whose value has increased by nearly a third last week, as social distancing measures forced more and
more Americans to work from home. All of Loeffler's transactions were made with her husband, Jeff
Sprecher, CEO of the New York Stock Exchange.
Meanwhile, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (New York) and Ilhan Omar (Minnesota) have joined the clamor of
voices demanding punishment. Ocasio-Cortez
described
the sales as
"stomach churning,"
while Omar reached across the aisle to side
with Fox News' Tucker Carlson in calling for Burr's resignation.
"For a public servant it's pretty hard to imagine many things more immoral than doing this,"
Carlson said during a Friday night monolog.
"Richard Burr had critical information that might have
helped the people he is sworn to protect. But he hid that information and helped only himself."
As of Saturday, there are nearly 25,000 cases of Covid-19 in the US, with the death toll heading
towards 300. Now both sides of the political aisle seem united in disgust at the apparent profiteering
of Burr, Loeffler, and Feinstein.
Right-wing news outlet Breitbart
savaged
Burr for voting against the STOCK Act in 2012, a piece of legislation that would have
barred members of Congress from using non-public information to profit on the stock market. At the
same time, a host of Democratic figures - including former presidential candidates
Andrew Yang
and
Kirsten Gillibrand
- weighed in with their own criticism too.
"If you find out about a nation-threatening pandemic and your first move is to adjust your
stock portfolio you should probably not be in a job that serves the public interest,"
Yang
tweeted on Friday.
If you find out about a nation-threatening pandemic and your first move
is to adjust your stock portfolio you should probably not be in a job that serves the public
interest.
Watchdog group Common Cause has filed complaints with the Justice Department, the Securities and
Exchange Commission and the Senate Ethics Committee
"calling for immediate investigations"
of
Burr, Loeffler, Feinstein and Inhofe
"for possible violations of the STOCK Act and insider trading
laws."
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
who make profits as well. I cannot remember exactly when insider trading for
them became legal but it should be no surprise to anyone paying the slightest bit of attention
that they're ALL doing it. That is one reason, at least in my semi-educated opinion, they did
not go after Trump for emoluments during Shampeachment, because THEY ALL DO IT.
That goes all the way to the White House, no doubt.
From comments "so that is who Tulsi endorses after talking about how bad they are? Jesus on a
cracker give me and effing break, Tulsi. Hondorus, Syria and Ukraine and endorsing the regime
change in Egypt. "
"[Looks like] ... blowing off her tiny support base in favor of whatever she has gotten was
worth the price to her. Will have to check the next library book sale (postponed at the moment)
for a cheap copy of Marlowe's Dr. Faustus or Goethe's Faust and send it to her. (She's not worth
buying a new copy for.)
@Jen
(have no interest in viewing her video because I have an autonomic gag reflex to liars)
The comments there make me feel a bit better. Looks as if Tulsi has lost all of her
supporters, funders, and voters, and they aren't coming back.
A sample:
Christopher Brunner:
Imagine basing your whole campaign on ending regime change wars and then ending it by
endorsing the man who voted for the Iraq War instead of standing on her principles and
endorsing the person who voted AGAINST regome change wars
Dash
Tulsi: "I will do everything I can to stop these shameful regime change wars."
Tulsi: "I now completely support one of the principle architects of America's shameful
regime change wars."
Tulsi: "Why don't you all love me anymore?"
Okay, a few are saying that Sanders is weak on regime change wars, etc. True enough but he
has a long track record of voting no on them when the chips are down.
I think it is near impossible that Biden would pick her as VP, despite this strange
endorsement. The Democrat establishment and the borg fiercely oppose her, and with Biden as
President and the coronavirus around, there is a real chance this time that a VP pick will
have to take over power from a dead or otherwise incapacitated President.
The move does not make much sense to me except as an "I surrender, at least for this
election cycle" message, I don't see Tulsi gaining any material benefit from this over
endorsing Sanders. The establishment will not suddenly start to like her again because of
this.
I also seriously doubt this assessment of Tulsi about Biden:
"I know that he has a good heart and is motivated by his love for our country and the
American people."
But, unless something has changed of which I am not aware, Warren closed down her campaign
without endorsing anyone. Why not Gabbard? Not impressed by this move.
Maybe she thinks this is, as eenginneer proposed above, playing the long game. I don't see
how that works, unless abject surrender on essentials (such as the willingness to contest the
war/regime change ploy amply on display with Biden & ilk) makes an impression on The Blob
that she can be relied upon to do likewise if she ever is entrusted with executive powers.
But infliction of such horrors as those brought about by the dismemberment of Libya are
scarcely indications of Biden having a good heart (or even a foresightful nature concerning
consequences).
What the US needs is an end to these abjectly stupid actions, not a new lease on life for
them. So, the more I think on this, and in consideration of her previously professing a
principled stand in this issue, this is a deal-breaker for me, fully as bad as Sanders'
actively working for the Hildabeast's election in 2016, making me question her sincerity in
general.
It is past time to put the kibosh on the imperial fantasy; stand up and be counted or
slink away.
Mystifying and dispiriting. Maybe "they" finally got something on her. Alternatively, did
she get any sort of contentment out of Joe in return? If she did will he be able to/want
to remember it come November 4? There's no chance the "organs" sector of the deep state would
take Tulsi-as-Veep lying down. Or any significant foreign policy or national security
position for that matter. She may think by endorsing Biden She'd at least partway move back
into the good graces of the Democratic Party establishment, but that's a false hope. They'll
never trust her again. If she'd kept her endorsement powder dry, even though she'd get no MSM
coverage going forward (not the vanishingly small amount she got as a candidate), more than a
few of the non-MSM platforms, video and otherwise, that have in some cases millions of
readers and viewers, would have been happy to have her on frequently. She'll still get some
of that exposure but not much. She may get some MSM stops in the next few days, but that will
be it.
Biden says: "Tulsi Gabbard has put her life on the line in service of this country and
continues to serve with honor today. I'm grateful to have her support and look forward to
working with her to restore honor and decency to the White House."
Tulsi would bring in some republicans but Biden won't choose because he's a puppet of the
borg and they thrive on the chaos created by our military interventions. The LSMFT community
doesn't like Tulsi for the unforgivable sin of speaking out against gay marriage as a
teen--she wasn't born with the progressive purity of heart. Then there's Assad. The media
ignored her visit with the orthodox priest in Aleppo who after its recapture by the SAA
praised Assad for saving them from the jahadis. The feminists resent Tulsi for being pretty.
All these groups prefer Lady Macbeth be the one to catch Joe when he falls.
I suspect the DNC and associated party grandees looked at the COVID situation and leant
heavily on candidates to back the front runner, so avoiding having their supporters
congregate at rallies or a brokered convention. That the front runner happened to be who they
wanted to see as their candidate surely helped.
I saw that yesterday. I don't know who Kai Gabbard was responding to and he has since
removed that Facebook comment. He also admitted he doesn't know the exact nature of his
sister's relationship with Sanders. Here's his original comment.
"Thank you for your kind words sir," the comment reads. "Bernie has treated my sister like
sh*t all the way through this. She has tried to endorse him again and he has refused her
support. Whoever he's getting his advice from has done a terrible job."
"You go ahead keep talking about however you want, but know this. She is just going to
continue being independent and keep fighting for us. Bernie isn't the man me and Tulsi once
supported 100 percent. I don't know what happened to him. He's refused to take the fight to
the establishment like Tulsi continues to do. Aloha to you and yours."
Who knows what happened between Bernie and Tulsi. Like I said, I was surprised she
endorsed old Joe over old Bernie. She's pragmatic and independent. She has demonstrated an
ability to work in a bipartisan manner without demonizing anyone. We need a lot more like
her.
I'm also partial to the aloha spirit. I thoroughly enjoyed my three and a half years in
Hawaii. For two of those years I spent a long weekend every month with C Company, 1/299th
Infantry on Maui. I spent another year working fairly closely with the local pig hunters and
pakalolo growers in the mountains surrounding my RECONDO school in the Kahuku Mountains. I
experienced aloha and ohana rather than anti-haoli discrimination. If Tulsi can bring that
spirit to the rest of the US, I'm all for it.
Gabbard endorsement doesn't surprise me. Her claim to fame is that she speaks truthfully
about our mideast adventures...and? Her domestic politics mirror the growing dingbat
coalition. I would say that she is a poor man's Ron Paul but that wouldn't be fair to
Ron.
He had the integrity not to endorse the detestable Pierre Delecto.
'Hairy-Legs' Joe: I'm excited to present my running mate, Tally Gourd- What? No- Gabby Ward-
I mean the next Vice Governor of the United States, Wally Gizzard!
Interestingly, the CFR membership rolls contain a one Gabbard, Tulsi; no Obiden Bama,
however.
Tulsi was under no obligation to endorse right away even if she signed a contract agreeing to
support the Nominee, besides, there is no nominee yet. Warren did not endorsed anybody yet, and
Bernie is still in the race.
tulsi is pro aipac, anti BDS, signed a legally binding document to be blue no matter who, and
just endorsed a neoliberal war monger who launched 6 of the 8 regime change wars we are
currently waging to be our next president.
THIS IS WHAT CONTROLLED OPPOSITION GATE KEEPING SHILLS DO. SHES NIKKI HALEY IN A
PROGRESSIVE CLOWNSUIT.
Sander wasn't in the 2016 and 2020 races to change things, only to give the appearance
of seeking radical change, what a grassroots revolution alone could possibly achieve.
Lots of people are behaving as if they hadn't heard which "Party" Gabbard and Sanders were
running for. They are working for the Single Party; which wing of it is irrelevant, just as
irrelevant as any nuances among its different people. I just don't get why the word "any"
should be unclear -- to anyone.
"In the US, there is basically one party - the business party. It has two factions, called Democrats and Republicans, which
are somewhat different but carry out variations on the same policies...Noam Chomsky
By supporting a warhawk, she is literally a traitor. ALL this talk of being against the wars and "my brothers and sisters"
all total bs because she was offered a golden ticket. Efffffff her.
How is it possible to morph from a Tulsi, to a Tulsigieg so fast?? How can she lie with that straight face, and say Biden has
a " good heart "??? I will never, ever trust her again. Democratic Party uses corrupt people without a backbone, and rigged electronic
vote machines.
So, she is another Warren. She didn't really believe what she was saying, she just saw an opportunity to become known/gain
power by surfing the progressive wave with a plan to leverage that notoriety/support.
Christo Aivalis 20.3K subscribers Earlier
today, Tulsi Gabbard announced she was dropping out of the presidential primary and endorsing Joe Biden for President. Many Tulsi
supporters felt betrayed by this move, but it fits the ideological similarities between Tulsi and Biden. It also shows that like
with Andrew Yang, Gabbard's anti-establishment image was only superficial, and it shows that Bernie Sanders is the only one meaningfully
challenging the political, social, and economic status quo It also shows that those neoliberal democrats who attacked Tulsi as a
Russian Asset seem fine with her now, as long as she falls in line. I wonder how Jimmy Dore is feeling?
I thought she was anti-war, yet she supports Biden, what a shame, I can't believe it, she was so fake all along, it's like
a bad movie twist... is there even one decent politician in USA, besides Bernie?
It's a bummer. She really had so much potential especially after she endorsed Bernie the first time. Now Idk. Williamson is
the only one who genuinely went to the most progressive candidate without hesitating.
#DemocracyDiesInDarkness
Miss Gabbard
shame on you, you spoke with human empathy, love and decent understanding towards human experience, you disappointed a
lot of your fellow human beings by endorsing a coward you are now apart of the evil axis of evil elite class.
S
hame on
you,, may the bird of paradise look down upon you, shame on you,, you lie , ,now join the elite and eat sponge cake and
drink champagne walk the halls of injustice,
Hawaii
congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard has dropped out of the 2020 presidential race to endorse her
ideological opposite, establishment darling Joe Biden. It's political suicide – for her,
and for the idea of a progressive Democrat. Gabbard's decision to bow out on Thursday may have
made sense from an electoral perspective – with just two delegates from her native
American Samoa, she wasn't exactly a serious challenger to the much-more-popular Biden or even
Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, whom she supported in the 2016 race.
Shut out of the primary debates by a Democratic Party establishment afraid she might do to
the frontrunner what she had done to California Senator Kamala Harris, whose juggernaut
campaign began taking on water after Gabbard exposed her heinous record live on stage, Gabbard
had little hope of an eleventh-hour electoral rally.
But while swearing fealty to the presumed nominee may have scored her some points among her
establishment critics, most had a clear ulterior motive, using her exit as further leverage to
pressure Sanders to drop out.
Even Tulsi Gabbard has the dignity to drop out and endorse Biden. Your move, @BernieSanders
.
At the same time, Gabbard's erstwhile supporters feel betrayed, and justifiably so. A
candidate who built her campaign on opposition to the business-as-usual Democratic policies of
cloaking foreign military intervention in humanitarian jargon, Gabbard instead called for
taking the trillions spent on the slaughter and plunder of hopelessly-outmatched Middle Eastern
nations and using that money to rebuild the crumbling American homeland. It was a message that
resonated across the partisan divide, even attracting some disillusioned 2016 Trump supporters
who had voted for the president based on his promise to end the endless wars in Syria and
Afghanistan, then watched in horror as he stepped up the bombing and tried to open another
front in Iran.
For the young Hawaiian to throw her support behind Biden – a man with nearly a 50-year
track record of supporting Wall Street, the military-industrial complex, Big Pharma and the
rest of the ruling establishment " because he has a good heart " is spitting in the face
of the hundreds of thousands of supporters who have contributed to her campaign, made phone
calls on her behalf, packed town halls, and otherwise poured their precious time and money into
supporting a long-shot candidate.
So Tulsi Gabbard endorses Biden? I have lost all respect for her.P.S. Don't drop out
Bernie. #NeverBiden
It's no surprise they aren't taking it well. How are voters supposed to trust any future "
progressive " candidates after such turncoat maneuvers from not only Gabbard but
Sanders, who in 2016 turned on a dime to stump for establishment pick Hillary Clinton after a
coterie of unelected superdelegates declared her the winner following a primary process which
leaked emails revealed beyond a shadow of a doubt to be rigged? Gabbard's political seppuku
should force progressive Democrats to come to terms with the fact that there is no room for
reform within their party.
On the bright side, those same pundits who screamed themselves hoarse warning that Gabbard
was working for Vladimir Putin to sow discord among the American electorate and swing the
nation to Trump now have to quietly revise their apocalyptic visions. Will they admit the
congresswoman is not the Russian wrecking ball they claimed she was, or will they carry the
fantasy to the finish line and say Gabbard has infected Biden's campaign with Russian 'malign
influence'?
Bernie Sanders is not a political candidate. He is an evangelical Socialist ideologue.
He has no personality to battle opponents. He makes proclamations of his ideology.
He has never "fought back".
He has no instinct for debating. He believes, therefore, in his mind, he is correct. He
expects others to follow his lead.
He has never been a real candidate. He was a distraction, a Pied Piper, for dopey students
and young people who latched onto his notions.
When you offer free rewards and your turnout goes down, you are over as a "candidate".
Biden is brain damaged. He is a very dangerous stalking horse for the return of the Magic
Negro, Obama, and the sociopathic Hillary Clinton.
If Biden wins in November, expect more war and a very long recession. Social chaos will
look racial, but it will be a battle for the Second Amendment, Free Speech, and Traditional
Values versus the Soulless Liberalism intended to establish Feudalism 'round the globe.
Everything in the Dem Primary and Convention is rigged. Bernie never had a chance. He
could care less. He never expected to be President. He just wanted big crowds to listen to
his Polemics.
The guy is 78, what makes you think he cares about Vermont ... trying for the first
100-year-old Senator? He's never been able to do anything in Congress anyway. His big shot
was spoiled by the Wicked Witch of the East. He would be President now, if not for her.
Bernie has fought long and hard. Look at his record, he has fought and succeeded in
accomplishing more for the people than any other politician.
What everyone is assuming is that if Bern becomes an ugly asshole just like all the others
before him TPTB would allow him to be the candidate or god forbid the POTUS. NEVER gunna
happen!
There is only one way We The People can get the representation we need and want it to come
out and state in the clearest possible way that Dems and Repubs are serving the same masters
with the same basic agenda and represent one party. We must then form a new party and put
everything we have behind it. It has to be a radical revolution and Bernie has made it clear
that he will fight for all of us. Which by the way is exactly what all the top Dems are
saying we don't need. Him getting elected under existing conditions would change NOTHING and
he knows it. Forcing him to go
People who put all of the responsibility for achieving this on Bernies shoulders are
ignorant chicken shits that don't deserve anything better than Biden, Cliton, Trump.
#6 Bernie has a long standing deal with the Democrats to play nice or they will do
all they can to ruin him. What else explains his reluctance to go after Biden like he should
have earlier in the campaign? Either way, we will see what happens, maybe he will go after
him, maybe not. I think he won't. I hope he does.
If Bernie is real; ie. not sheep-dogging for Hillary again, he can prove it by dropping out
immediately and throwing his delegates to Tulsi. This is the only shot to thwart the
convention designs of the Dame Named Clinton.
Hey Bernie! Throw a Hail Tulsi Pass now!
Bernie absolutely will not fight. For the record, at Democrat Party platform meetings
in July 2016 he wouldn't put up the slightest fight against TPP . His position against
TPP had gained him many followers. Union heads who had been anti-TPP until then showed up and
were stongly pro-TPP as were Hillary and Obama:
"Bernie Sanders failed to get strong language opposing the Trans-Pacific Partnership
inserted in the draft Democratic platform at a party meeting here Saturday....It was clear as
a string of trade union presidents lined up at the microphone to oppose the Sanders
amendments that his forces were outmatched.... (parag. 11)
The Obama administration supports it [TPP], and the desire to avoid embarrassing the
president carried the day, with the labor unions acting as a political shield for the White
House. Delegates twice Saturday morning voted down stronger opposition language as Sanders
supporters booed and chanted "sellout." Some eventually walked out of the meeting
entirely."...
The only topic on the 2020 election agenda should be that the US must be broken into
parts. The weapons dictatorship that runs the US won't be stopped any other way.
Bernie allowed Biden to co-opt his "message" on every point.
Even on his signature healthcare initiative, sheepdog Bernie rolled over. Bernie
should've/could've asked why we should trust that Biden would get a 'public option' when
Obama failed to do so (an Obama-Biden campaign promise).
Bernie also showed that he's got no interest in winning by failing to attack Biden on
character issues ( just as he wouldn't attack Hillary on character issues in 2016).
Any real candidate would've brought up Hunter Biden's dealings in Ukraine and China.
Bernie also pulled many punches, like:
No mention of the $50+ trillion dollars of off-shore money;
Biden's loyalty to Obama: a President who failed to deliver "Change You Can Believe
In";
Biden's connections to the MIC "swamp" - supporting a militaristic and belligerence
foreign policy that makes us less safe;
Democratic Party's failure to protect workers and the middle-class (Bernie often
talks about "the billionaires" but never talks about how they got to be so powerful in
America)
Democratic Party's failure to be representative: no people of color in the last few
debates!
Bernie's quixotic insurgency isn't anti-establishment. He's leading people into a dead end.
And hoping you won't notice.
!!
/div>
Bernie is not there to be president, never was. his tribal mission is to dog herd the
progressives into voting for the lesser evil Judeo-Zionist DNC´s pick. the day is not far
when the name Sanders will have an entry in the common dictionary of the American language
defined as "mass deception".
Posted by: nietzsche1510 , Mar 16 2020 8:45 utc |
76
Bernie is not there to be president, never was. his tribal mission is to dog herd the
progressives into voting for the lesser evil Judeo-Zionist DNC´s pick. the day is not
far when the name Sanders will have an entry in the common dictionary of the American
language defined as "mass deception".
Posted by: nietzsche1510 | Mar 16 2020 8:45 utc |
76
Willie @48 / 84
There's no need for Sanders to designate a Dauphin: at every election the Owners of the
Country trot out a shepherd dog, to bark the disgruntled people back to the fold, keeping
them from burning down the Democrat abomination down. And yes, the sheeple are just as stupid
as we think they are. Wallace, Mc Govern, Jackson, Kucinich, Sanders... the Owners always
have a sheepdog ready. No matter if heshehe is a well-meaning, sincere populist like Kucinich
or a warmongering imperialist buzztard like Sanders, or even worse, the sheepdog is the wolf
in person, like Obama, the stupid sheep keep obeying the dog and voting for more of the
same.
Because, see, their Hopium addiction has addled their brains. You just don't go to war
relying on heroin addicts; it's just as bad with those who need their daily dose of Hope
(when there is none.) They can't follow logic.
/div>
#13 You are right, absolutely Tulsi would make mincemeat of Biden and the establishment
and Trump. They know it. But Bernie has surrounded himself with people who see reality through
an establishment lens, which means they look forward to a career in the establishment political
job market. They have convinced Bernie to ignore Tulsi because of a variety of reasons 1. Some
are neocons 2. Some are Hinduphobes 3. Some are both 4. The rest know
the establishment is dead set against Tulsi because she is a revolutionary. So even though
she would win easily if Bernie gave his support to Tulsi, I can't see him doing that. Let us
pray he does because at this point
we need a miracle to save us from either Trump, Biden, or some other establishment
lackey.
#13 You are right, absolutely Tulsi would make mincemeat of Biden and the establishment
and Trump. They know it. But Bernie has surrounded himself with people who see reality
through an establishment lens, which means they look forward to a career in the establishment
political job market. They have convinced Bernie to ignore Tulsi because of a variety of
reasons 1. Some are neocons 2. Some are Hinduphobes 3. Some are both 4. The rest know
the establishment is dead set against Tulsi because she is a revolutionary. So even
though she would win easily if Bernie gave his support to Tulsi, I can't see him doing that.
Let us pray he does because at this point
we need a miracle to save us from either Trump, Biden, or some other establishment
lackey.
Well that's it Bernie is done and he made sure to s*** on his own movement as he stumbled off
the stage back to his 3 mansions. He had already lost with super Tuesday, but he had a chance
to save his legacy with a strong debate performance if he managed to squeeze some public
commitments out of Biden for his followers. Instead he meekly assented to Biden's coronation,
what was the point of the debate for Bernie's movement? they got nothing out of Biden, heck,
Biden even made a point of trashing Medical Care for all and demanding that all of Bernie's
people embrace him as their rightful king. Bernie's people got NOTHING from Biden and the
DNC, the will continue to get NOTHING from them until they show the DNC that they will
boycott the next election and make the DNC lose elections they would otherwise win. sure the
Democrats will blame them for Trump 2020, but the Democrats lost the moderates in 2000 but
they still came back to pander to them, time to make them pander to Bernie's people!
>Bernie Sanders has only ever been a clever tool to mobilize
> the young voters. Never designed to actually have a chance. Just whip up dreams
> Posted by: Jezabeel | Mar 16 2020 9:03 utc | 79
... and then crush the dreams so the dreamers drift away in disgust.
1. No one is talking about last night's debate because of the Coronavirus. It doesn't show
up on my 'Bing' homepage and there isn't even mention of it on the few liberal websites that
I visit except for Counterpunch and there was only one there.
. @DanaPerino I'm not quite sure why
you're telling FOX viewers that Elizabeth Warren is the last female candidate in the Dem
primary. Is it because you believe a fake indigenous woman of color is "real" and the real
indigenous woman of color in this race is fake? pic.twitter.com/VKCxy2JzFe
"... One almost feels sorry for Bernie Sanders, who, even at this late stage, still seems to believe that he can drag Joe Biden to the 'left' and secure something/anything? for all those millions of ordinary Americans who supported Bernie's dream of a more just and equal America. ..."
"... Poor Bernie and poor ordinary Americans. It ain't gonna work. Bernie knows that the Demorcratic party has chosen Biden, not him and his political dream is over, once again. ..."
"... With Joe having these " miraculous " wins in the primaries yet bringing nothing new to the table I can only conclude we are set for another 4 yrs of Trumpelstiltskin and his money grubbing ways. ..."
"... Tulsi is inspirational. I'm not talking 'politics' but regarding her willingness to speak truth to corruption. ..."
"... The self-evident externalities of 40 years of unfettered neoliberalism (war, lies, injustice, extreme wealth inequality, etc) now seem to be approaching some sort of explosive end-point. ..."
"... These problems are too entrenched for real politicians to sort out, so what we have instead is a form theatre, albeit a third-rate form of theatre with abysmal actors taking on roles that are far too difficult for them: Trump vs Biden would be the apotheosis this morass. ..."
"... As it turned out, the security state's narrative was easy to pull off because Sander is weak, lacks courage, and was never in it to win it. He never fought back against the DNC. ..."
"... He never called out the cheating in Iowa. There were thousands of volunteers that would be willing to protest on his behalf. Timid Bernie just let it go. ..."
"... Instead Bernie, kept saying "Biden is my good friend" or "Biden can beat Trump." WTF, if Biden can beat Trump then why are you running? Are you campaigning for Biden? ..."
"... The final nail was Tulsi's tweet asking for Biden and Bernie's support for her to right to participate in the next debate. Yang and Marianne Williamson tweeted yes of course, but Bernie was silent. On subsequent mainstream media news appearances Bernie totally ignored Tulsi's candidacy. That was it – Bernie is a lackey – completely intimidated by the DNC. ..."
"... "Former New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg is a top contender to head up the World Bank. Bloomberg endorsed Biden immediately after dropping out of the 2020 race. ..."
"... Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts as Treasury secretary. Warren dropped out of the race last week after disappointing losses on Super Tuesday but hasn't yet made an endorsement. Axios reported that Warren's name had been floated as part of an effort to unite the fractured Democratic Party around Biden. Some of Biden's advisers have also suggested Warren as a vice-presidential candidate for that reason. ..."
"... Seems Bernie has reprised his role as sheep dog. Probably the reason the Orwellian DNC unpersoned Tulsi is that she probably refused to play. ..."
"... Hundreds of thousands of ballots in California and Texas were discarded. Warren purposely stayed in the race to screw Bernie in Minnesota and Massachusetts, while Klobuchar and Buttigeg dropped out to prop-up Biden. ..."
"... And as I mentioned, Bernie is his own worst enemy, or as I also speculated he was never in it to win it. ..."
"... Blackmail ? The Clinton campaign exercising leverage over Sanders during the election – Podesta/wikileaks emails. 'This isn't in keeping w the agreement. Since we clearly have some leverage, would be good to flag this for him'. https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/47397 ..."
"... Unfortunately. Trump may end up botching the corona crisis and lose, but whoever wins it's going to be four more years of everything getting worse. ..."
"... Some research on 'possible' fraudulent hidden computer counting from first super Tuesday. http://tdmsresearch.com/ ..."
The handful of American citizens who have by some miracle escaped the wave of death caused
by the coronavirus will be braving the toilet-paper maddened crowds to vote in the latest round
of Democratic primaries today.
There's several more rounds of voting before the convention in July, but this is the last
before the next debate on March 15th.
The process is kinda moot at this point.
The weight of the establishment has thrown itself – for some reason – behind Joe
Biden.
Since his "miraculous"
wins on Super Tuesday we've been treated to dozens of stories praising his "decency", happy
that "angry politics" lost, and calling for the party to "unite
behind" Biden . And that's just The Guardian .
Jonathan Freedland, in his special brand of smug establishment boot-licking, suggested that
Biden being a long-term establishment democrat is his strength in these times of crisis.
You have to wonder if that crisis wasn't awful convenient for Joe, in that instance.
None of the mainstream media have questioned the validity of results or the fairness of the
electoral process, although given the DNC's history you'd be forgiven for doing so.
After Biden's win, Trump immediately went on the offensive (so to speak), questioning
Biden's
mental acuity . This is likely just a taste of things to come.
Given this, you have to wonder what the point of the exercise is. Biden will likely be
mauled by Trump, so are the Democrats even trying to win? Is the plan for Biden to have "health
problems" before the convention, forcing the DNC to pick its own candidate? Or is the plan to
have him run, win and then get Ned Starked by his vice-president whoever he or (more likely)
she may be?
Whatever the plan turns out to be, progressives and leftists all over America will likely be
disappointed in Bernie. If last time is anything to go by, no matter how obviously he (and more
importantly his voters) get screwed over, Sanders will just let it happen.
It seems like Bernie is a serial offender here. Setting up hope only to fold faster than
Superman on laundry day when the pressure is on. You wonder if he's being used as a tool to
engage the youth vote, or just a puppet designed to funnel all real leftist thinkers into a
political cul-de-sac.
The other Great White Hope of American leftists – or should that be "Great Native
American hope"? – Elizabeth Warren, dropped out last week but is yet to endorse her
fellow "progressive", Bernie Sanders. This could mean she's spiteful, or it could mean she's
angling to be Biden's VP nominee. Either way, no real surprise and no real loss. Warren always
talked a better game than she played and she didn't talk all that well.
Oh, and the DNC changed their debate eligibility rules to exclude
Tulsi Gabbard . Something both the other candidates and the vast majority of the mainstream
media have been quiet about.
Questions arise
Are the democrats really rallying behind Joe Biden? why?! Are they
planning to throw the race? Is Joe Biden going senile? Who will each candidate pick as a
running mate? Will the DNC ever acknowledge Tulsi Gabbard exists?
NOBTS ,
If Bernie is real; ie. not sheep-dogging for Hillary again, he can prove it by dropping out
immediately and throwing his delegates to Tulsi so she can debate Joe Biden on Sunday; then
watch the fur fly. .last chance for the left.
Seriously, the only positive play left for Bernie, (if positive change is his intent )would
be to immediately drop out and throw a "Hail Tulsi Pass" downfield ahead of the Sunday
debate.
michaelk ,
One would imagine that Tulsi Gabbard would tick all the liberal/left boxes and virtues the
Guardian pretends to adore and aspire to. She seems almost too perfect in my eyes another
story perhaps? Anyway, one wonders what all those politically correct and so obvioulsy woke
feminist ladies at the Guardian have against Tulsi? The Guardian seems to have decided that
its future lies overseas, in America, which is very odd for a newspaper/platform based in the
UK? Consequently, they are increasingly obsessed with moving closer and closer to the
Democrat party in the US.
This is like the BBC that keeps talking to Americans about absolutely everything of
importance that happens in the world and seeking their insights and opinions to a truly
remarkably degree, considering how little they know and understand about the rest of the
world and how poor they are at foreign languages and historical knowledge. Christ they know
next to nothing about their own history, let alone the rest of the world! The idea that all
these Americans are authorities on the world is ridiculous.
Harry Stotle ,
The ghosting of Gabbard illustrates how the MSM act in concert, and how they look after their
own, i.e. backing those understand their role as puppets for corporate backers.
It also illustrates how the likes of the Guardian turn identity politics off and on like a
tap, but more importantly how even shibboleths like identity politics are still secondary to
an economic model that has placed us on the road to armegeddon.
Maxine ,
Well, Tulsi is FAR from "too perfect" .She voluntarily took part in the Bush/Cheny invasion
of Iraq .How could anybody with a working mind have believed the lies of these nortorious
criminals? .And what sort of judgement did this show? .Just as bad, she is a big fan of
India's monstrous Right-Wing leader, Modi .Nevertheless, the DNC's throwing her out of the
debate is another hideous sign of its corruption .Like her or not, she should have her
opinions heard by the public.
Maxine ,
Don't get me wrong, I find the Gaurdian as despicable as CNN, MSNBC, FOX, the NYT and the
rest of the American MSM .OffG is a god-send.
Admin2 ,
Thanks Maxine!
michaelk ,
One almost feels sorry for Bernie Sanders, who, even at this late stage, still seems to
believe that he can drag Joe Biden to the 'left' and secure something/anything? for all those
millions of ordinary Americans who supported Bernie's dream of a more just and equal America.
Poor Bernie and poor ordinary Americans. It ain't gonna work. Bernie knows that the
Demorcratic party has chosen Biden, not him and his political dream is over, once again.
Now it's all about stopping the 'monster' Trump first and foremost. The coming election
won't actually be about anything of real substance, nothing like Bernie's political ideas
about healthcare and education; but it'll be a crass referendum about Trump's personality.
Biden, of course, doesn't really have a personality anymore, that's going fast, along with
his mental capacity.
Trump will smash him to pieces and be re-elected again. Four more years,
at least.
Maxine ,
I would have voted for Bernie in 2016 if the DNC hadn't rigged the primary on behalf of
Hillary .But I was overwhelmingly disappointed that he in the end supported her .Sadly, I am
appalled that once again he announced he would support Biden if the latter won the primary
this time. How could he?. Hillary and Biden are diametrically opposed to every one of
Sander's professed principles!
Andy ,
With Joe having these " miraculous " wins in the primaries yet bringing nothing new to the
table I can only conclude we are set for another 4 yrs of Trumpelstiltskin and his money
grubbing ways.
As for Michelle Obama coming into the fight , I can only laugh and carry on
with my life. I fail to see what she has to offer, other than being Barry's wife. Not really
awe – inspiring stuff. Young Hilary must be turning in her coffin at the thought of
being pipped to the post, as the first female President by another ex presidents wife.
We
truly are living in bizarro times. The men behind the curtain must be laughing their
collective arses off at the results of this circus they have created.
Tulsi is inspirational.
I'm not talking 'politics' but regarding her willingness to speak truth to corruption.
harry stotle ,
America dispensed with the idea of democracy some time ago.
The self-evident externalities of 40 years of unfettered neoliberalism (war, lies,
injustice, extreme wealth inequality, etc) now seem to be approaching some sort of explosive
end-point.
There may be a full blown international conflict, rather than asymmetrical power used to
intimidate weaker states (led by the USA, and backed to the hilt by Britain, Israel, and
KSA).
These problems are too entrenched for real politicians to sort out, so what we have
instead is a form theatre, albeit a third-rate form of theatre with abysmal actors taking on
roles that are far too difficult for them: Trump vs Biden would be the apotheosis this
morass.
Pity more citizens in America fail to understand what has been done to them, or what this
corrupt regime has inflicted on rest of the world.
Britain is no better – to expose what is happening we need a functioning MSM but what
we have instead is the Guardian and BBC: platforms that are now infamous for churning out low
calibre, or fake news.
Is the plan for Biden to have "health problems" before the convention, forcing the DNC
to pick its own candidate?
That's my theory. I think they're going to suddenly 'discover' that Joltin' Joe has
'health problems' and then roll out their real candidate on the second ballot at the
convention this summer–probably Michelle Obama.
Will the DNC ever acknowledge Tulsi Gabbard exists?
I think our only hope now is that the Corona Virus kills all other politicians in the US,
leaving only Tulsi alive. Of course, the DNC would probably still find some way to deny her
the nomination somehow
michaelk ,
The DNC's election tactics were superb. Corrupt, rotten, foul and manipulative as well, but
they worked. The swathe of candidates at the start gave the impression of a democratic and
fair race, whilst deflecting people away from the stark choice of supporting Biden or Sanders
from the beginning.
Whilst Trump succeeded by first capturing the Republican party and then going on to win
the presidential election; Sanders chose not to follow that strategy, apparently believing,
though it's an extraordinary thing to believe, that the leadership of the party was going to
allow him to win the nomination 'fairly.'
Biden against Trump is going to be the worst, most grotesque, election contest, ever seen
in the United States. Two totally unworthy candidates battling it out over the rotting corpse
of a dying democracy. Probably the best result would be if most people just stayed at home on
election day and boycotted the entire ghastly event.
wardropper ,
Yes. People should just stay home. But of course there is a regular percentage of observers
who are incensed by the idea that people will realize how little effect their vote truly
has.
"It's treason not to vote", they rage, quite oblivious to the really treasonous system
which manipulates votes according to something quite different from the interests of
democracy.
wardropper ,
It would be interesting to see, (although it's not going to happen) how the media, faced with
an absolute zero voting turnout, would still manage to yap on about a "neck and neck race",
with the most corrupt party emerging the clear winner after all
Gary Weglarz ,
The Democratic Party candidate selection process continues to roll along providing all the
tension and suspense of an impending colonoscopy – sans anesthetic. It has been clear
since 25 (yes 25) Democratic Party challengers have already "dropped out" of the race –
that divide and conquer would be the order of the day. Spread the electorate out among a
ridiculous number of mainstream centrist candidates and then throw all that support to one
candidate – Joe Biden. Why would the party establishment choose Biden? Perhaps the
following recent quote from Joe might shed some light. In trying to reference the Declaration
of Independence Biden had the following to say to a crowd at a campaign rally:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, all men and women created by -- you know, you
know . . . the thing."
Since we all know "the thing" is said to "work in mysterious ways" – one can deduce
that the Democratic Party elites are perhaps depending upon "the thing" to work some sort of
a miracle for them. At any rate it is all rather "mysterious" indeed.
Since Tulsi Gabbard has had the temerity to not join the 25 brain-dead placeholders and to
"drop out" herself, and since she has further shown the very bad form of continuing to speak
to anyone who will listen about America's illegal amoral regime-change wars – she has
sadly had to be simply – "disappeared." Yes, I know, this term is usually associated
with the death-squad democracies my government supports endlessly and shamelessly in Latin
America, but if nothing else our American MSM have shown that you don't need death squads
when they are on the job. They are quite capable of completely and entirely "disappearing"
anyone sharing a message that has not been – "oligarchy approved." Trying to find
reference to Tulsi in MSM is like trying to get through a day without being brutally reminded
of Joe Biden's blinding dementia problem – pretty much impossible.
As the author suggests the Democratic Party establishment surely must have some plan other
than simply sabotaging Sanders and then throwing a demented Biden to the Orange One to act as
a pinata during the presidential debates. We American's do love "reality TV," but this I fear
would be about as crass and horrific a spectacle as watching someone drown puppies on live
television. Surely we must assume that the DNC and party oligarchy plan to use Biden as yet
another "place-holder" to be replaced between now and fall presidential debates. The name
"Hillary 'the rot' Clinton comes to mind – and suddenly one is reminded that there are
worse things in life than a colonoscopy.
Of course the actual credibility of all of this spectacle to date depends upon one
actually believing that both the polling numbers, and the voting processes, are honest and
ethical and accurate, which seems to me to be about as likely as "you know, you know . . .
the thing," performing some sort of a "miracle" on behalf of the Democratic Party so that it
can valiantly vanquish the Orange One – using of all things – a dementia
sufferer.
From my limited vantage point here in southern California it would appear that America is
very much like a runaway train speeding toward a very very thick brick wall while gaining
speed minute by minute. This train of course has no "driver" – save the inexorable laws
of history as they pertain to crumbling "empires."
With that in mind I think I'll go shopping again so I can pretend none of this is
happening – while joining with my neighbors in "hoarding" as much toilet paper as I
possibly can! Actually, truth be told, the local toilet paper supply is now long gone and
people are now hoarding paper towels – (I kid you not) – which of course portends
a lot of very very sore bottoms by the time this is all over.
Seamus Padraig ,
You can have a dogshit sandwich or a catshit sandwich, just so long as its kosher.
So true! +1000
Charlotte Russe ,
Unfortunately, for all of Bernie's enthusiastic supporter 2020 was a redux of 2016. Amnesia,
initially sets in caused by the initial excitement. Bernie's campaign overwhelms those
yearning for change. Sanders is cognizant of how young voters and the marginalized are
economically suffering. He knows exactly what to say to arouse an audience of thousands.
Devoted crowds eagerly rally around Bernie anticipating the upcoming primaries, believing
he'll win everyone of them. After all, how could anyone be against a message promoting social
justice.
And lo and behold, right out of the box the security state shenanigans begin. A "Shadow
app" surfaces in Iowa, followed by a narrow win in New Hampshire. And although Bernie won the
popular vote in the first two primaries he still comes out the loser to CIA Pete. However,
not to be deterred Bernie won the Nevada caucus in a landslide. That was the moment when
security state needed to make its move. It was now or never. These ghouls could not let
Bernie pick up any more momentum. If they did, it would be too late to stop
him–Milwaukee could turn into a bloodbath. It was time for the intelligence agencies to
take a stand.
Clyburn a sellout bourgeois conservative black was called upon to do his duty. You don't
get to be a "misleader" of the poor and the dejected if you won't convince them to smile
while jumping off a cliff.
Slick Clyburn, gathered all the other crooked black politicians and they united in force
behind brain dead Biden. When misleader Clyburn speaks his downtrodden constituency listens.
South Carolina was a wipeout–Biden overwhelmingly won. And that's all the security
state needed. Using the state-run mainstream media news propaganda machine in 72 hours
Biden's campaign was raised like Lazarus from the dead.
Drooling Joe, received a slew of slick endorsements from all the longtime party hacks. A
narrative was easily generated– Sanders was a loser and only Biden could beat Trump. At
the end of day, don't you dumbasses want to beat Trump. So let's unite behind alzheimer
Joe–he's our best chance.
As it turned out, the security state's narrative was easy to pull off because Sander is
weak, lacks courage, and was never in it to win it. He never fought back against the DNC.
He
never called out the cheating in Iowa. There were thousands of volunteers that would be
willing to protest on his behalf. Timid Bernie just let it go. There were other things
showing Bernie's lack of interest in winning. He stupidly embraced the Russiagate concocted
narrative and then was victimized by it himself. He refused to tear into Biden describing in
detail how every piece of reactionary legislation Joe passed was based on payoffs he'd
received for either his son or his brother. In South Carolina, Bernie never used the millions
donated to play video clips proving Biden is a warmongering racist.
Instead Bernie, kept saying "Biden is my good friend" or "Biden can beat Trump." WTF, if
Biden can beat Trump then why are you running? Are you campaigning for Biden?
The final nail was Tulsi's tweet asking for Biden and Bernie's support for her to right to
participate in the next debate. Yang and Marianne Williamson tweeted yes of course, but
Bernie was silent. On subsequent mainstream media news appearances Bernie totally ignored
Tulsi's candidacy. That was it – Bernie is a lackey – completely intimidated by the
DNC.
Naturally the DNC didn't want Tulsi near the debate stage–she's the bravest of the
lot. Tulsi would have proved Biden was a crook and a war criminal. Tulsi presence would be a
boom for bernie, but Bernie didn't want that since he was in cahoots with the DNC.
And in the end, that's what it was always all about NOTHING. Bernie is the Tammy and Jim
Baker of politics a prophet of false hope. He gathers up all the guiless and guillibe and
then tosses them into the lion's den.
In Biden's case it's easy to know why the slithering DC establishment gang embraced him
with open arms -- they all wanted to come back home
Here are some of the people Biden is considering for senior positions, per Axios:
"Former New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg is a top contender to head up the World Bank.
Bloomberg endorsed Biden immediately after dropping out of the 2020 race.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts as Treasury secretary. Warren dropped out of the
race last week after disappointing losses on Super Tuesday but hasn't yet made an
endorsement. Axios reported that Warren's name had been floated as part of an effort to unite
the fractured Democratic Party around Biden. Some of Biden's advisers have also suggested
Warren as a vice-presidential candidate for that reason.
Pete Buttigieg, the former mayor of South Bend, Indiana, as the US ambassador to the
United Nations or the US trade representative. Buttigieg also endorsed Biden shortly after
dropping out.
Some Biden advisers see Sen. Kamala Harris of California as a contender for attorney
general if she's not on the ticket.
JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon and Bank of America Vice Chairman Anne Finucane have both
been floated for positions at the Treasury Department.
The Biden campaign is also considering a slew of veterans from the Obama administration
for key positions. Among those being considered:
Former Secretary of State John Kerry may reprise his role or take on a Cabinet position
focused on combating climate change.
The former national security adviser Susan Rice may be nominated for a State Department
role.
Former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates is a contender for attorney general."
Every loathsome contemptible neoliberal military interventionist is waiting in the wings
to continue where Obama left off ..
Super Tuesday was so obviously rigged. The vote in California deviated from exit polling by
over 15% and don't get me started on that Shadow app used for the Iowa caucus. The only
difference wasn't as blatantly obvious as the last Primary.
Seems Bernie has reprised his role as sheep dog. Probably the reason the Orwellian DNC
unpersoned Tulsi is that she probably refused to play.
Charlotte Ruse ,
Hundreds of thousands of ballots in California and Texas were discarded. Warren purposely
stayed in the race to screw Bernie in Minnesota and Massachusetts, while Klobuchar and
Buttigeg dropped out to prop-up Biden.
In avid Bernie locations polling centers were closed. And when all else failed voting
machines are hacked. No one should underate the power of state-run mainstream media
propaganda they hammered Sanders and launded the creep Biden.
And as I mentioned, Bernie is his own worst enemy, or as I also speculated he was never in
it to win it.
The elections are more democratic in Afghanistan. When I previously commented on several
posts the Democratic Party Primaries need to be monitored by a UN Raconteur many found it
amusing.
Maxine ,
Why did Bernie become a candidate if he were not in it to win? .I can't figure that one out.
Eric McCoo ,
Blackmail ?
The Clinton campaign exercising leverage over Sanders during the election –
Podesta/wikileaks emails. 'This isn't in keeping w the agreement. Since we clearly have some leverage, would be good
to flag this for him'. https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/47397
RealPeter ,
There is a lot in what Charlotte says. Unfortunately. Trump may end up botching the corona
crisis and lose, but whoever wins it's going to be four more years of everything getting
worse.
Andy ,
Some research on 'possible' fraudulent hidden computer counting from first super Tuesday.
http://tdmsresearch.com/
Ken ,
The fix is in for the status quo, and it's quite likely another 4 years of the orange
asshole.
Everybody knows (listen to Leonard Cohen) Tulsi Gabbard does not exist, just like everybody
knows Saddam had Weapons of Mass Destruction, Assad, that Putin Nazi, spread some kind of Bad
Gas in Douma, repeatededly over several years since 2014, which the Intrepid White Helmets
made better–just watch their Hollywood, Oscar winning movie. Of course Joe Biden is
senile, else why would he challenge our carrot-topped Fearless leader, and everybody knows
that Putin-Nazi Boris and Natasha tried to rig the 2016 election but were thwarted by
Moose-Squirel, and other CIA assets.
"... The weight of the establishment has thrown itself – for some reason – behind Joe Biden. Since his "miraculous" wins on Super Tuesday we've been treated to dozens of stories praising his "decency", happy that "angry politics" lost, and calling for the party to "unite behind" Biden . And that's just The Guardian . ..."
"... Jonathan Freedland, in his special brand of smug establishment boot-licking, suggested that Biden being a long-term establishment democrat is his strength in these times of crisis. You have to wonder if that crisis wasn't awful convenient for Joe, in that instance. ..."
The toilet-paper maddened crowds will be braving coronavirus to vote in the latest round of
Democratic primaries today.
There's several more rounds of voting before the convention in July, but this is the last
before the next debate on March 15th.
The process is kinda moot at this point.
The weight of the establishment has thrown itself – for some reason – behind Joe
Biden. Since his "miraculous"
wins on Super Tuesday we've been treated to dozens of stories praising his "decency", happy
that "angry politics" lost, and calling for the party to "unite
behind" Biden . And that's just The Guardian .
Jonathan Freedland, in his special brand of smug establishment boot-licking, suggested that
Biden being a long-term establishment democrat is his strength in these times of crisis.
You have to wonder if that crisis wasn't awful convenient for Joe, in that instance.
... ... ...
Whatever the plan turns out to be, progressives and leftists all over America will likely be
disappointed in Bernie. If last time is anything to go by, no matter how obviously he (and more
importantly his voters) get screwed over, Sanders will just let it happen.
The other Great White Hope of American leftists – or should that be "Great Native
American hope"? – Elizabeth Warren, dropped out last week but is yet to endorse her
fellow "progressive", Bernie Sanders. This could mean she's spiteful, or it could mean she's
angling to be Biden's VP nominee. Either way, no real surprise and no real loss. Warren always
talked a better game than she played and she didn't talk all that well.
Oh, and the DNC changed their debate eligibility rules to exclude
Tulsi Gabbard . Something both the other candidates and the vast majority of the mainstream
media have been quiet about.
Questions arise Are the democrats really rallying behind Joe
Biden? why?! Are they planning to throw the race? Is Joe Biden going senile? Who will each
candidate pick as a running mate? Will the DNC ever acknowledge Tulsi Gabbard exists?
"... As interesting as it might be to have Tulsi there, the time has come for a two-man debate, mano a mano , between Mr. Neoliberal and Mr. Democratic Socialist. Our time has come. ..."
New Qualifications for Next Debate Likely Rule Out Gabbard
The Democratic National Committee has ratcheted up the threshold to qualify for its next
presidential debate, requiring candidates to have picked up at least 20% of convention
delegates allocated in state primary contests.
As interesting as it might be to have Tulsi there, the time has come for a two-man debate,
mano a mano , between Mr. Neoliberal and Mr. Democratic Socialist. Our time has
come.
Yes, the results from American Samoa are in, first to report 100% on
Super Tuesday, and Tulsi is on the board, with over 20% of the vote, in second place behind
(surprise) Michael Bloomberg, who also earns his first delegates tonight. Biden, Sanders and
Warren didn't hit the 15% viability threshold and are shut out.
Now, if the DNC sticks to the same criteria for the upcoming debate as they had for the last
three, one delegate should be sufficient for Tulsi to return to the debate stage. Of course,
they've been known to change the rules in the middle of the game before, but this time it looks
like they won't have the excuse of too many candidates, particularly if Liz drops out if she
can't win her home state.
like many of the Pacific islands, the vast majority of the population is Christian, and like
many Pacific Islands the population revere their Chiefs and religious leaders. The American
Samoan Chief endorsed Bloomberg. Why he did is a partly explained in the following article from
The Hill ... Climate change is a very immediate and tangible experience for pacific
Islanders.
"I believe in Mike's message of change for the people of American Samoa -- he has the
experience and the vision to bring about the change we need -- including staving off climate
change, which will be devastating to our home. He has my family's vote, and my village," the
chief said, according to a campaign release.
I haven't seen Bloomberg's ads there, but I can imagine he promised to help them in that
regard.
She needed and more than deserved at least a delegate for her self-sacrificing, steadfast
courage and honesty throughout this crooked campaign season. From the preponderance of
Bloomberg votes, it looks like American Samoans haven't been paying close attention, but
thankfully some of them could see past sophisticated advertisements to recognize one who is
truly their own.
"I will note this, she's from Hawaii," King said of Gabbard.
"She's a congresswoman from Hawaii; American Samoa votes on Super Tuesday. The rules as
they now stand, if you get a delegate, you're back in the debates. As of now. Correct? "
"Yeah, they haven't, I mean, that's been the rule for every single debate," Thompson
replied.
"And the DNC has not released their official guidance for the March 15 debate in Phoenix,
but it would be very obvious that they are trying to cancel Tulsi, who they're scared of a
third party run, if they then change the rules to prevent her to rejoin the debate
stage."
And indeed, as the smoke clears from the Super Tuesday frenzy, this is precisely what
appears to have transpired.
"The Gabbard campaign said it was informed that it would net two delegates from the
caucuses in American Samoa, which will allocate a total of six pledged delegates," The Hill
reports today. "However, a report from CNN said that the candidate will receive only one
delegate from the territory on Tuesday evening."
"Tulsi Gabbard may have just qualified for the next Democratic debate thanks to American
Samoa," reads a fresh Business Insider
headline. "Under the most recent rules, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii may have qualified for
the next televised debate by snagging a delegate in American Samoa's primary."
"If Tulsi Gabbard gets a delegate out of American Samoa, as it appears she has done, she
will likely qualify for the next Democratic debate," tweeted Washington Post
's Dave Weigel. "We don't have new debate rules yet, but party has been inviting any
candidate who gets a delegate."
Rank-and-file supporters of the Hawaii congresswoman enjoyed a brief celebration on social
media, before having their hopes dashed minutes later by an announcement from the DNC's
Communications Director Xochitl Hinojosa that "the threshold will go up".
"We have two more debates -- of course the threshold will go up," tweeted Hinojosa
literally minutes after Gabbard was awarded the delegate. "By the time we have the March
debate, almost 2,000 delegates will be allocated. The threshold will reflect where we are in
the race, as it always has."
We have two more debates-- of course the threshold will go up. By the time we have the
March debate, almost 2,000 delegates will be allocated. The threshold will reflect where we
are in the race, as it always has.
-- Xochitl Hinojosa (@XochitlHinojosa) March 4,
2020
"DNC wastes no time in announcing they will rig the next debates to exclude Tulsi,"
journalist Michael Tracey tweeted in response.
This outcome surprised nobody, least of all Gabbard supporters. The blackout on the Tulsi
2020 campaign has reached such extreme heights this year that you now routinely see pundits
saying things like there are no more people of
color in the race, or that Elizabeth Warren is the only
woman remaining in the primary. They're not just ignoring her, they're actually erasing
her. They're weaving a whole alternative reality out of narrative in which she is literally,
officially, no longer in the race.
After Gabbard announced her presidential candidacy in January of last year I
wrote an article explaining that I was excited about her campaign because she would
severely disrupt establishment narratives, and, for the remainder of 2019, that's exactly what
she did. She spoke unauthorized truths about Syria, Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia, she drew
attention to the plight of Julian Assange and Edward Snowden and said she'd drop all charges
against both men if elected, she destroyed the hawkish, jingoistic positions of fellow
candidates on the debate stage and arguably single-handedly destroyed Kamala Harris' run.
The narrative managers had their hands full with her. The Russia smears were relentless, the
fact that she met with Syrian president Bashar al-Assad was brought up at every possible
opportunity in every debate and interview, and she was scoffed at and derided at every
turn.
Now, in 2020, none of that is happening. There's a near-total media blackout on the Gabbard
campaign, such that I now routinely encounter rank-and-file liberals on social media who tell
me they honestly had no idea she's still running. She's been completely redacted out of the
narrative matrix.
All candidates of color are out. An openly gay married candidate is out. 2 women left. The
rest? 70+ old white men fighting for the future of America in 2020. Because of course.
So it's unsurprising that the DNC felt comfortable striding forward and openly announcing a
change in the debate threshold literally the very moment Gabbard crossed it. These people
understand narrative control, and they know full well that they have secured enough of it on
the Tulsi Problem that they'll be able to brazenly rig her right off the stage without
suffering any meaningful consequences.
The establishment narrative warfare against Gabbard's campaign dwarfs anything we've seen
against Sanders, and the loathing and dismissal they've been able to generate have severely
hamstrung her run. It turns out that a presidential candidate can get away with talking about
economic justice and plutocracy when it comes to domestic policy, and some light dissent on
matters of foreign policy will be tolerated, but aggressively attacking the heart of the actual
bipartisan foreign policy consensus will get you shut down, smeared and shunned like nothing
else. This is partly because US presidents have a lot more authority over foreign affairs than
domestic, and it's also because endless war is the glue which holds the empire together.
And now they're working to
install a corrupt, right-wing warmongering dementia patient as the party's nominee. And
from the looks of the numbers I've seen from Super Tuesday so far, it looks entirely likely
that those manipulations will prove successful.
All this means is that the machine is exposing its mechanics to the view of the mainstream
public. Both the Gabbard campaign and the Sanders campaign have been useful primarily in this
way; not because the establishment would ever let them actually become president, but because
they force the unelected manipulators who really run things in the most powerful government on
earth to show the public their box of dirty tricks.
I just can't be sympathetic with Bernie and his voters tonight. Remember how Bernie came out
to support Tulsi Gabbard when she was having such a hard time with the establishment? Neither
do I. Remember how Bernie's supporters made sure Bernie would speak the truth about
russiagate, or they weren't going to support him? Neither do I. Remember how Bernie made it
clear in every debate and every interview that the choice is endless war or medicare for all?
He didn't. Watching someone with a few leftist atoms in him being defeated in State after
State by a warmongering sociopath who belongs in a hospice with bars on the windows, is like
watching what he deserves.
People who casually tell you that Bernie is for the Empire--and not for the repair of
society-- are people trafficking in lies.
I encourage everyone to look at Bernie with a critical eye and decide for yourself.
Bernie has a history of deference to the Democratic Party and Democratic Party leaders.
All of whom are 100% pro-Empire.
'Nice guy' Bernie doesn't do anything that threatens the establishment. HE promises
revolutionary change - but that has NEVER come just from establishment Parties via the
ballot box. It has come from independent Movements.
When Bernie talks about Empire matters, he generally obfuscates or reinforces
pro-Empire narratives (like Russiagate's McCarthyism).
Anyone in political life for any length of time (like Bernie) must know that USA
is EMPIRE-FIRST. Empire priorities (military and intelligence focus; 'weaponized' liberalism;
neoliberal graft; dollar hegemony; Jihadis as a proxy army; etc.) dictate the limits of
domestic politics.
Bernie's quixotic insurgency was doomed to fail unless Bernie attacked the Democratic
Party's connection to Empire and use of identity politics to divide and conquer. Oh, and
Bernie would have to threaten to leave the Democratic Party -- but then would become the
independent Movement that Bernie and the Democratic Party have tried so hard to prevent!
However, we do need to raise questions about election anomalies. Journalists should be
focused on the DNC is cheating Bernie and, by extension, the American people. It must be
recorded. It should be investigated. The first 4 primary contests account for only 4% of all
allocated delegates, yet have a hugely disproportionate influence on the race. Of those 4 states,
only NV is roughly in synch with the national demographic profile.
The whole primary system needs a major overhaul. It takes too long and costs too much (e.g.,
all the wasted $$ Steyer and Tulsi spent in SC). It's an embarrassing wasteful spectacle which
only enriches the MSM and hired political consultant hacks. Most voters don't bother to tune in
until 10-12 months into the marathon campaign. I would blow it all up and start over from
scratch.
"They're fearful because Bernie Sanders, his political revolution, morally based, ethically
based, is a fundamental challenge to their interest and their status." -- Dr. Cornel West
In a remarkable statement that has gone virtually unreported in the American media,
Representative Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii, a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination,
publicly denounced US intelligence agencies for interfering in the presidential contest and
attempting to sabotage the campaign of Democratic frontrunner Bernie Sanders.
In an opinion column published February 27 by the Hill , Gabbard attacked the
article published by the Washington Post on February 21, the eve of the Nevada
caucuses, which claimed that Russia was intervening in the US election to support Sanders. She
also criticized the decision of billionaire Michael Bloomberg, the former mayor of New York
City, to repeat the anti-Russia slander against Sanders during the February 25 Democratic
presidential debate in South Carolina.
Gabbard is a military officer in a National Guard medical unit who has been deployed to Iraq
and Kuwait and has continuing and close contact with the Pentagon. She is obviously familiar
with the machinations of the US military-intelligence apparatus and knows whereof she speaks.
Her harsh and uncompromising language is that much more significant.
She wrote:
Enough is enough. I am calling on all presidential candidates to stop playing these
dangerous political games and immediately condemn any interference in our elections by
out-of-control intelligence agencies. A "news article" published last week in the
Washington Post, which set off yet another manufactured media firestorm, alleges
that the goal of Russia is to trick people into criticizing establishment Democrats. This is
a laughably obvious ploy to stifle legitimate criticism and cast aspersions on Americans who
are rightly skeptical of the powerful forces exerting control over the primary election
process.
We are told the aim of Russia is to "sow division," but the aim of corporate media and
self-serving politicians pushing this narrative is clearly to sow division of their own -- by
generating baseless suspicion against the Sanders campaign. It's extremely disingenuous for
"journalists" and rival candidates to publicize a news article that merely asserts, without
presenting any evidence, that Russia is "helping" Bernie Sanders -- but provides no
information as to what that "help" allegedly consists of.
Gabbard continued:
If the CIA, FBI or any other intelligence agency is going to tell voters that "Russians"
are interfering in this election to help certain candidates -- or simply "sow discord" --
then it needs to immediately provide us with the details of what exactly it's alleging.
After pointing out that the Democratic Party establishment and the corporate media have had
little interest in measures to actually improve election security, such as requiring paper
ballots or some other form of permanent record of how people vote, Gabbard demanded:
The FBI, CIA or any other intelligence agency should immediately stop smearing
presidential candidates with innuendo and vague, evidence-free assertions. That is
antithetical to the role those agencies play in a free democracy. The American people cannot
have faith in our intelligence agencies if they are pushing an agenda to harm candidates they
dislike.
As socialists, we do not share Gabbard's belief that the intelligence agencies have a
positive role to play or that the American people need to have faith in them. As her military
career demonstrates, she is a supporter of American imperialism and of the capitalist state.
However, her opposition to the "dirty tricks" campaign against Sanders is entirely legitimate
and puts the spotlight on a deeply anti-democratic operation by the military-intelligence
apparatus.
Gabbard denounces this "new McCarthyism" and calls on her fellow candidate to rebuff the CIA
smears and "defend the freedoms enshrined in our Constitution." Not a single one of the
remaining candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination -- including Sanders himself --
has responded to her appeal.
Her statement concludes that the goal of the "mainstream corporate media and the
warmongering political establishment" was either to block Sanders from winning the nomination,
or, if he does become the nominee, to "force him to engage in inflammatory anti-Russia rhetoric
and perpetuate the new Cold War and nuclear arms race, which are existential threats to our
country and the world."
Despite Gabbard's appeal for the Democratic candidates not to be "manipulated and forced
into a corner by overreaching intelligence agencies," the Democratic Party establishment has
been working in lockstep with the intelligence agencies in the anti-Russia campaign against
Trump, which began even before election day in 2016, metastasized into the Mueller
investigation and then the effort to impeach Trump over his delay in the dispatch of military
aid to Ukraine for its war with Russian-backed separatist forces.
Her comments are a complete vindication of what the World Socialist Web Site has
written about the anti-Russia campaign and impeachment: these were efforts by the Democratic
Party, acting as the representative of the military-intelligence apparatus, to block the
emergence of genuine left-wing popular opposition to Trump, and to channel popular hostility to
this administration in a right-wing and pro-imperialist direction.
Gabbard herself was the only House Democrat to abstain on impeachment, although she did not
voice any principled grounds for her vote, such as opposition to the intelligence agencies. She
has based her campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination largely on an appeal to
antiwar sentiment, particularly opposing US intervention in Syria. She has also said that if
elected, she would drop all charges against Julian Assange and pardon Edward Snowden.
These views led to a vicious attack by Hillary Clinton, the defeated Democratic presidential
candidate in 2016, who last October called Gabbard "a Russian asset," claiming that she was
being groomed by Russia to serve as a third-party candidate in 2020 who would take votes away
from the Democratic nominee and help re-elect President Trump. "She's the favorite of the
Russians," Clinton claimed.
Since Clinton's attack, the Democratic National Committee has excluded Gabbard from its
monthly debates, manipulating the eligibility requirements so that billionaire Michael
Bloomberg would qualify even for debates held in states where he was not on the ballot but
Gabbard was, such as Nevada and South Carolina.
"... Biden and Warren are both enthusiastic supporters of neocon foreign policy which is in line with their phony support for the working class. What happened to Warren's glittering M4A plan? It turned back into a pumpkin didn't it? It was all smoke and mirrors. No surprise if you know her history. ..."
"... Imperial Borg Assimilation ..."
"... The Foreign Policy Establishment ..."
"... Warren is an establishment social climber. She took off the mask and her true colors shone through when she viciously attacked Bernie Sanders as a misogynist. Yet still many people surrounding the Sander's campaign support Warren. Why is that? Big money on the left supports her, that's why. That big money also pays a lot of salaries in the liberal political job market. Have you heard of the The Democracy Alliance ? ..."
"... Why do so many liberals or even progressives dislike Tulsi and are so eager to see her gone? Propaganda from the media. The media for a year has relentlessly promoted Red Baiting towards Tulsi because Tulsi challenges the "Washington Consensus" (unfettered elite rule over America and the world with an iron fist). ..."
"... Everyone in the pro-Israel lobby (myself included) is already talking about how to make sure that Tulsi Gabbard's campaign is over before it even gets off the ground -- If you're going to bet on a Dem candidate, look elsewhere. ..."
"... There are many reasons behind that. The main reason though is Tulsi trying to stop war. The Neocons and Saudis have been pushing American politicians, celebrities, media owners, think tanks, foundations and so on for years -- to destroy Syria. Supposedly because Syria is close allies with Iran. ..."
As I was checking the news earlier today
I noticed that the coronavirus had killed another top government official in Iran, bringing the total to 3. Or at
least the 3 they have released info on. There's a chance it's worse among the Iranian leadership but they don't
want to cause a panic. I checked the Twitterverse after that for my daily dose of madness and surprisingly kept
seeing people ask rhetorically:
Why is Tulsi Gabbard still in the
primary race?
Turns out that Amy "She Hulk" Klobuchar
had dropped out of the primary race apparently to suck up to Joe Biden for a VP slot. And so had Pete "Honestly
I'm Not Annoying" Buttigigieididisjjd. This of course should surprise no one since the threat of Bernie Sanders to
the financial criminal syndicates greasing the palms of practically all politicians and media to do their bidding
have seen the writing on the wall. They realize they need candidates to drop out in order to coalesce centrist
votes around one or two to stop what they perceive to be a huge problem for them in Bernie Sanders.
... ... ...
Biden and Warren are both enthusiastic
supporters of neocon foreign policy which is in line with their phony support for the working class. What happened
to Warren's glittering M4A plan? It turned back into a pumpkin didn't it? It was all smoke and mirrors. No
surprise if you know her history.
Did you see her on Pod Save America regaling us with how much she believes in
crippling countries by sanctions if they dare to resist the racist
Imperial Borg Assimilation
Machine
aka
The Foreign Policy Establishment
?
That doesn't sound woke to me Miss Thang
.
Warren is an establishment social
climber. She took off the mask and her true colors shone through when she viciously attacked Bernie Sanders as a
misogynist. Yet still many people surrounding the Sander's campaign support Warren. Why is that? Big money on the
left supports her, that's why. That big money also pays a lot of salaries in the liberal political job market.
Have you heard of the
The Democracy Alliance
?
The Democracy Alliance is a
semi-anonymous donor network funded primarily by none other than Democratic mega-donor George Soros. Since its
inception in 2005, it is estimated the Alliance has injected over $500 million to Democratic causes. While it
isn't typical that they would endorse a candidate outright, they focus more on formulating a catalog of
organizations and PACs that they recommend the network of about 100 or so millionaires and billionaires invest
in. Democracy Alliance almost literally have their hands in every major left-leaning institution you have (and
haven't) heard of -- John Podesta and Neera Tanden's Center for American Progress, David Brock's Media Matters,
Center for Popular Democracy, Demos (we'll come back to this one), and the Working Families Party. All of these
organizations are listed on the Alliance's website as recommended investments for it's members; and invest they
do. Here's the rub: Democracy Alliance's membership isn't made entirely public -- but we know enough that alot
of the people that have sat in the highest levels of that organization have an affinity for Elizabeth Warren.
... ... ...
Why do so many liberals or even
progressives dislike Tulsi and are so eager to see her gone? Propaganda from the media. The media for a year has
relentlessly promoted Red Baiting towards Tulsi because Tulsi challenges the "Washington Consensus" (unfettered
elite rule over America and the world with an iron fist).
That is why we got this from Jacob Wohl
after Tulsi declared her candidacy last year:
Everyone in the pro-Israel lobby
(myself included) is already talking about how to make sure that Tulsi Gabbard's campaign is over before it
even gets off the ground -- If you're going to bet on a Dem candidate, look elsewhere.
There are many reasons behind that. The
main reason though is Tulsi trying to stop war. The Neocons and Saudis have been pushing American politicians,
celebrities, media owners, think tanks, foundations and so on for years -- to destroy Syria. Supposedly because
Syria is close allies with Iran.
But they are not the only ones who want
Syria destroyed. Other reasons may have to do with massive profits at stake. A natural gas survey team from Norway
some years ago discovered that Syria has the largest
untapped deposits of natural gas in the world
. After that secret discovery became known by various powerful
people
plans were drawn up to split
up the profits after the destruction of the Syrian government. But after Syria
asked Russia for help that changed their plans.
She is not having our country
become a plaything for rich a-holes who use the lives and limbs of service members for their greedy
scams. Because of that the idle rich sociopaths ruling America with their political and media henchmen
went after Tulsi with a full barrage of lies
, media blackouts, and massive amounts of propaganda --
all to stop her message from getting out so they can create a false image of her in people's minds.
Everything and anything they can throw at her, they do.
There are two politicians whom
they fear. Bernie Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard. Which is why Bernie Sanders has unsurprisingly been trying
to stay out of the foreign policy debate, or he even goes along with the establishment for the most part.
He saw what they unleashed against Tulsi. He knows from long experience that propaganda works on a lot of
people. The financial elites are not naive though, they probably believe he is going along with their
ridiculous foreign policy as a political strategy -- until he gains more power. They fear that if he gains
that power he will, like Tulsi, not go along with their imperial stormtrooper agenda.
The thing to watch today will be the vote stealing by the Democrat oligarchy. They are the
world champions at every sort of electoral malfeasance. Remember in 2016 how Bernie almost
won New York until Brooklyn, his hometown, was counted and more than 20,000 voters
disappeared? Then there was California where millions of votes went uncounted and Hillary was
called the winner.
The Democrats are not really a political party in the sense that europeans understand the
term, more like an agglomeration of electoral machines, controlled by politicians owned by
vested interests, making up the rules as they go along.
With both Biden and Warren desperate for anything that can be portrayed as momentum expect
the unexpected: repeats of the sort of nonsense we saw in Iowa and local precincts in which
110% of the electorate give unanimous support to the candidate most likely to take away their
social security and wave 'bye-bye' as they die untreated of diseases. Or malnutrition.
A
nd the cherry on top of the electoral sundae in today's primaries will be the near unanimity
with which the most glaring irregularities are ignored by the media, and anyone suggesting
that 2+2= anything as predictable as 4 will be called a conspiracy theorist, working for
Putin and the KGB.
However, we do need to raise questions about election anomalies. Journalists should be
focused on the DNC is cheating Bernie and, by extension, the American people. It must be
recorded. It should be investigated. The first 4 primary contests account for only 4% of all
allocated delegates, yet have a hugely disproportionate influence on the race. Of those 4 states,
only NV is roughly in synch with the national demographic profile.
The whole primary system needs a major overhaul. It takes too long and costs too much (e.g.,
all the wasted $$ Steyer and Tulsi spent in SC). It's an embarrassing wasteful spectacle which
only enriches the MSM and hired political consultant hacks. Most voters don't bother to tune in
until 10-12 months into the marathon campaign. I would blow it all up and start over from
scratch.
"... It is especially galling to see how the Hollywood Community has embraced the era of red-baiting Joseph McCarthy as the new standard for what is acceptable. There was a time that a few brave souls in Hollywood (I am thinking Lucille Ball, Kirk Douglas and Gregory Peck), spoke out against the blacklisting of actors, writers and directors for their past political ties to the Soviet Union. ..."
"... This was an ugly, awful and evil time in America. It was a period of time fed by fear and ignorance. While it is true that there were Americans who identified as Communists and embraced the politics of the Soviet Union, we scared ourselves into believing that communist subversion was everywhere and that America was teetering on the brink of being submerged in a red tide. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton's crazy rant accusing U.S. Army Major and Member of Congress, Tulsi Gabbard, as a Kremlin puppet is not a deviation from the norm. Clinton exemplifies the terrifying norm of the political and cultural elite in this country. Accusing political opponents of being controlled by foreign enemies, real or imagined, is an old political tactic. Makes me wonder what Edward R. Murrow or Dalton Trumbo would say if we could bring them back from the dead. ..."
"... "Hillary Clinton's crazy rant accusing U.S. Army Major and Member of Congress, Tulsi Gabbard, as a Kremlin puppet is not a deviation from the norm." ..."
"... Ms. President is the closest facsimile to Lady Macbeth that American politics has been able to produce. She'd have murdered her own husband if she had thought succession would have fallen to her. As it was, the only thing that kept him alive was that she needed him for the run she had in mind for herself. The debris that this woman has left in her wake boggles the mind. That she came within a whisker of the job where she would perhaps have left the country in that debris field is a sobering thought to think about what American presidential politics has become in the 21st c. Alas, what passes for her failure and the Country's good fortune, her loved ones in the Arts are still not over. And so they are left commiserating and caterwauling over the Donald this, and the Donald that, while all this good material and their celebrity goes down the tube. Good riddance to them both. ..."
"... Trump campaigned on Drain the Swamp in 2016. The Swamp attempted to take him down with the Russia Collusion hoax that included Spygate and the Mueller special counsel investigation. ..."
In the wake of the latest Hollywood buffoonery displayed at the Oscars, I think it is time for the American public to denounce
in the strongest possible terms the rampant hypocrisy of sanctimonious cretins who make their living pretending to be someone other
than themselves. Brad Pitt, Joaquin Phoenix and Barbara Streisand pop to mind as representative examples. All three are eager to
lecture the American public on the need for equality and non-discrimination. Yet, not one of the recipients of the
Oscar
gift bags worth $225,000 spoke out against that extraordinary excess nor demanded that the money spent purchasing these "gifts"
be used to benefit the poor and the homeless. Nope, take the money and run.
It is especially galling to see how the Hollywood Community has embraced the era of red-baiting Joseph McCarthy as the new
standard for what is acceptable. There was a time that a few brave souls in Hollywood (I am thinking Lucille Ball, Kirk Douglas and
Gregory Peck), spoke out against the blacklisting of actors, writers and directors for their past political ties to the Soviet Union.
Now I have lived long enough to see the so-called liberals in Hollywood rail against Donald Trump and his supporters as "agents
of Russia." Many in Hollywood, who weep crocodile tears over the abuses of the Hollywood Blacklist, are now doing the same damn thing
without a hint of irony.
If you are a film buff (and I consider myself one) you should be familiar with these great movies that remind the viewer of the
horrors visited upon actors, writers and directors during the Hollywood Blacklist:
The Front -- a 1976 comedy-drama film set against the Hollywood blacklist in the 1950s. It was written by Walter Bernstein,
directed by Martin Ritt, and stars Woody Allen and Zero Mostel.
Good Night, and Good Luck -- a 2005 historical drama film directed by George Clooney, tells the story of Edward R.
Murrow fighting back against the hysterical red-baiting of Senator Joseph McCarthy.
Trumbo -- a 2015 American biographical drama film directed by Jay Roach that follows the life of Hollywood screenwriter
Dalton Trumbo, who was blacklisted but continued to write award winning movies in alias (e.g. Spartacus).
This was an ugly, awful and evil time in America. It was a period of time fed by fear and ignorance. While it is true that
there were Americans who identified as Communists and embraced the politics of the Soviet Union, we scared ourselves into believing
that communist subversion was everywhere and that America was teetering on the brink of being submerged in a red tide.
Thirty years ago I reflected on this era and wondered how such mass hysteria could happen. Now I know. We have lived with the
same kind of madness since Donald Trump was tagged as a Russian agent in the summer of 2016. And the irony is extraordinary. The
very same Hollywood elite that heaped opprobrium on Director Elia Kazan for naming names in Hollywood in front of the House UnAmerican
Activities Committee, are now leading the charge in labeling anyone who dares speak out against the failed coup as "stooges" of the
Kremlin or Putin.
Hillary Clinton's crazy rant accusing U.S. Army Major and Member of Congress, Tulsi Gabbard, as a Kremlin puppet is not a
deviation from the norm. Clinton exemplifies the terrifying norm of the political and cultural elite in this country. Accusing political
opponents of being controlled by foreign enemies, real or imagined, is an old political tactic. Makes me wonder what Edward R. Murrow
or Dalton Trumbo would say if we could bring them back from the dead.
Trump Derangement Syndrome is a vast understatement. You never could have convinced me 4 years ago that virtually all of my liberal
friends would have completely lost touch with reality due to their visceral hatred of one man.
It no longer matters if you agree with people on social policy, entitlements, student loans, homelessness, drug addiction or
even wealth distribution.
If you do not share their irrational hatred of Trump, you're going to be lambasted, shunned and treated like a pariah.
Hillary Clinton has become the poster child for the corruption that has captured and paralyzed our political parties and government
institutions. Why is she above prosecution? Is the corruption complete? Can we look to any individual or group to restore our
Republic? Wake me when the prosecutions begin.
"Hillary Clinton's crazy rant accusing U.S. Army Major and Member of Congress, Tulsi Gabbard, as a Kremlin puppet is not
a deviation from the norm."
Ms. President is the closest facsimile to Lady Macbeth that American politics has been able to produce. She'd have murdered
her own husband if she had thought succession would have fallen to her. As it was, the only thing that kept him alive was that
she needed him for the run she had in mind for herself. The debris that this woman has left in her wake boggles the mind. That
she came within a whisker of the job where she would perhaps have left the country in that debris field is a sobering thought
to think about what American presidential politics has become in the 21st c. Alas, what passes for her failure and the Country's
good fortune, her loved ones in the Arts are still not over. And so they are left commiserating and caterwauling over the Donald
this, and the Donald that, while all this good material and their celebrity goes down the tube. Good riddance to them both.
I agree that HUAC's conduct was excessive but you really ought to show the other side of the coin as well.
Communism was genuinely awful. To this day we don't know how many people died, murdered by their own governments, in Soviet
Russia and Communist China.
The U. S. government was infiltrated at the very pinnacle of government (as in presidential advisors) by Soviet agents.
We know this from Kremlin documents.
We now know (based on Kremlin documents) that the American Communist Party was run by knowing Soviet agents and was funded
by the Soviet Union.
The motion picture industry had been heavily infiltrated by Communists including some actual Soviet agents (while Reagan
was head of SAG he rooted them out).
We resolved those issues the wrong way but they desperately needed to be resolved.
This is self-righteous baby boomer nonsense. It was a brief and slightly uncomfortable time for a handful of people in Hollywood,
after which the subversion of American culture and institutions chugged along merrily along to the present day.
But this episode has been re-purposed and often reduced to caricature as part of a long ideological project aimed at convincing
generations of otherwise intelligent white people that their past is a shameful parade of villains.
Kirk Douglas bravely defied the blacklist by giving Dalton Trumbo credit on Spartacus under his real name, effectively breaking
the blacklist.
I saw part of the Academy Awards and all I heard over and over again were the words race and gender, no female directors nominated.
On a side note, this being Black History month, teevee is usually filled with the appropriate programing. But because it is
the 75th anniversary of the liberation of Aushwitz the Jews are stealing the Blacks thunder by hogging the programming. When the
oppressed collide.
Just how big is the carbon footprint on a $225,000 swag bag? So nice to see Hollywood integrity in action. I wonder what the Bernie
Tax will be on them in 2021?
Chills run down my spine that you start your list with 'The Front'.
Woody Allen's 'The Front', a 'film noir' about the beast and about courage in trying to slay it, is an absolute masterpiece,
its end is unmeasurably spectacular and encouraging, and... somehow the movie never got the acclaim it deserves, and lives as
one of those quiet orphans.
But it is highly actual, and that is why you must have come to place it first.
Trump campaigned on Drain the Swamp in 2016. The Swamp attempted to take him down with the Russia Collusion hoax that included
Spygate and the Mueller special counsel investigation.
Rep. Devin Nunes uncovered many of the shenanigans while he investigated the claims of Russian interference in the 2016 election.
He implored Trump to use his prerogative as POTUS to declassify many documents and communications. Trump instead took the advice
of Rod Rosenstein acting as AG who initiated the Mueller investigation and did not declassify. He then passed the buck to AG Barr,
who has yet to declassify.
The question that needs to be asked in light of this: Is Trump a conman who has duped the electorate with Drain the Swamp as
he has not used his exclusive powers of classification to present to the voter all the documents and communications about the
actions of law enforcement and intelligence agencies relating to claims about Russian influence operations during the 2016 election?
Blue Peacock, the question that needs to be asked is do you blow your wad all at once on one play. Or do you drip, drip, drip
it out strategically. I suggest the latter in this endless game of gotcha politics. Yes, Trump is a con man. That is how he made
his billions - selling sizzle. One quality that does translate well into the political arena. No one is surprised - his life has
been on the front pages for decades.
The only newly revealed quality that I find remarkable is his remarkable staying power - the most welcome quality of all. It
takes ego maniacs to play this game. Surprised anyone still thinks politics is an avocation for normal people. It isn't. And we
the people are the ones that demand this to be the case.
I left the american sh*thole a long time ago and my choice never felt better. I look forward to seeing 50% of americans trying
to slaughter the other 50% over socialism. Here we're doing just fine with socialist medecine, and social programs for just about
everyting. The Commons are still viable where common sense resides... Oligarchs love cartels, socialism and piratization: it's
all about privatizing the gains and socializing the losses to the hoi polloi.
I wonder if Hollywood knows how small some of the audiences in actual movie theaters are now. It's always surprising to me that
I am sitting in almost empty theaters now when I decide I want actual movie theater popcorn and so will pay to watch a movie that
I have read about and heard about from friends who have already seen the movie. I don't attend unless I've heard good things from
my friends about the movie.
I am constantly surprised that some people even consider watching the Oscars now. I feel the same about professional sports.
You would be surprised at how good high school plays are and how good high school bands, orchestras, choirs are. The tickets
are cheap, and a person actually gets to greet the performers.
I feel the same about my local university (my Alma Mater). It's Performing Arts departments are excellent. As a student long
ago, my student pass allowed me to attend wonderful performances.
The Glory Days of Hollywood are no more. The actors and directors need to be humbled by having to go to towns across the country
to see how sparse the audience in a movie theater is now. It's not at all as I remember as a child when there were long lines
at the ticket window.
So she was fooled into thinking Iraq had something to do withe 9/11?
Guess she couldn't figure out buildings never fall at free fall speed unless they have
demolition charges set in them.
Hello Prairiedog,
Do you know why my comments are not accepted or shown here?
I replied to your comment with my comment that is not being accepted here.
I see you have a high ratting so i thought you may have an idea about accepted comments. what
am I doing wrong?!
The risk is limited - this kills the old and infirm.
MOA was accurate in all the panic - China controlled its initial outbreak (although a
re-entry is not unlikely imo). That the rest of the world didn't react fast enough, is
expected though, but saying that before it was a thing would have been unnecessarily
scare-mongering I'd say.
Hi B,
looks like the guys at New England Biolabs have a very rapid assay for COVID-19 --- Rapid
Molecular Detection of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) Virus RNA Using Colorimetric LAMP
Yinhua Zhang, Nelson Odiwuor, Jin Xiong, Luo Sun, Raphael Ohuru Nyaruaba, Hongping Wei,
Nathan A Tanner
Its a preprint -- but this is the way to go an isothermal loop mediated amplification
(LAMP) assay. You ought to be able to get a result in about 30 minutes -- faster once they
really automate it. Should cost virtually nothing a few cents.
Other versions of it might be adapted so you can use them in the field so a general
practitioner or even a soldier will be able to make the diagnosis at the bed side-- its a
simple color change in a tube. All you need is a pipette the assay tube a hot block and a
timer. True positive rate 99.99% false positive about 1% or less. This what the CDC needs.
Problem is that they have to mass produce the assay tubes -- we need 100 million like
yesterday. The other thing is that we might need martial law to quarantine people and we need
to train people to use the kits and fast.
All of a sudden, "freedom isn't free" axiom acquires a really macabre meaning. The inevitable
devastation in countries with laissez-faire approach to this emergency will eventually prove
"totalitarian" Chinese measures as being vastly superior.
The US will undoubtedly - if grudgingly - adopt Beijing MO, but only after hundreds of
thousands of people die needlessly, and America's healthcare system falls apart under the
pressure of millions of patients unable to pay exorbitant bills.
The American mind does not know what "public health" is.
"Public health" is not a thinkable thought. b's paragraph beginning with "Tests must be
freely available..." is a sequence of events that cannot exist even in fiction in America.
Only someone who has never lived here could write that paragraph. None of b's suggestions are
happening. And because these simple measures cannot happen, a price will be paid.
The overreaction to this will cause much, much more damage than the virus would have if it
were responded to in a conventional, sensible way. Those in positions of responsibility are
terrified of underreacting, and it's easy to rationalize that it's better to be safe than
sorry.
If measures taken cause unnecessary disruption, if they increase the level of stress, the
levels of disease and the amount of death will rise rather than fall. There is more to
disease than just microbes.
This is not to say that we should be laissez-faire. Our response to the yearly outbreak of
the flu is, in my opinion, insufficient. Schools are an unprecedented institution of
prolonged propinquity. Children go to school, are with their classmates in enclosed rooms all
day, and bring the disease home. Children survive, but grandma and grandpa might not. Schools
can be shuttered during outbreaks, and the technology exists, at least for the relatively
fortunate, to continue the instruction online. People should also be encouraged to avoid
stressful prolonged propinquity situations such as travel on planes, trains, and interstate
buses.
It's occurred to me that the death rate statistics might be misleading. Since China closed
their schools, one can assume that the disease rate among children fell substantially.
However, elderly people who live in care facilities, which is a high density living
situation, would not enjoy the falling infection rate, and they are exactly the population
most susceptible to a fatal outcome. This alone, perhaps, might make the death rate higher
for COVID19 than for the flu.
The US healthcare system, the privatized system of exploitation of the sick for greater
investor profits, is not capable of dealing with a pandemic. Trump and his gang of thieves,
charlatans, and unapologetically incompetent followers of Ayn Rand and graduates of the Koch
Brothers University, will prevent the socialization of medicine if they possibly can. Will a
future cover of Time Magazine show them all hanging from lamp posts?
Whether this pandemic provokes the rapture of Pence & his 144,000 elect and the much
anticipated End Times, or whether it fizzles out, I do heartily wish for one outcome: the
disenfranchisement of Donald J Trump, his heirs & assigns, and all those who seem unable
to smell the stink of his bullshit.
CDC estimates 30 million flu cases each year with 30,000 deaths and 500,000
hospitalizations. I think we are a long way from any real concern. The US is nowhere near as
polluted or densely populated as China. Also, I don't think we know how the disease spreads
among non Asians. They are keeping that under wraps. Aside from those captives on the cruise
ship there really has not been much spread from those who returned from China (visitors or
citizens).
Agreed that the US leadership is clueless and their thrashing around in order to protect
corporate capitalism is xenophobic and dangerous to the world. Came across this research on a
plant bioflavonoid that you might find useful in the treatment of SARS COV-1 (aka
COVID-19).
It's always Groundhog Day in the USA.
It's always late August 2005.
It's always New Orleans.
It's always Hurricane Katrina [or something else] on the horizon.
It's always a Republican Administration in power.
Who needs external enemies when we have such internal incompetents available to do the work
of sabotage? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groundhog_Day_(film)
Neither Reps nor Dems are psychologically capable even of conceiving the kinds of measures
the post calls for. Trump's stooge already proclaimed that profit is the one and only goal of
any response ("the market must decide"), while the Dem leadership as well can speak and think
only in terms of making care "affordable", IOW the main purpose of the whole process still
has to be corporate control and profit, even if a few stray Dems do want government to
subsidize some victims. The purpose still is money changing hands, profit, commerce. Until
the Big One levels the karma of this place that will never change.
It seems almost like fate is teeing up one practice play each time, just to show the US
how hollowed out it is, before the real play begins. First was the Iranian reprisal strike
which could have been so much more devastating. And now, although it's too early to tell how
severe this pest ultimately will be, it looks so far like it won't completely cleanse the
place. But if so that won't be for the lack of the US economic and cultural system giving it
every opportunity it can use.
I have no doubt the US learns zero from either test case. By now the US is too berserk and
stupid to deduce anything from its very survival than confirmation of the excellence of its
policy and encouragement to further escalate and accelerate.
The idea that Uncle Sam will do something useful and timely is simply laughable. I have been
mostly housebound due to severe illness for the past five years. Imagine a five year
quarantine! In all that time I have had zero social support besides receiving a disability
pension. I hire a personal shopper every two weeks to bring groceries; everything else comes
via UPS or FedEx. I frequently go two weeks at a time and never see anyone except maybe a
delivery driver.
There is no system to take care of housebound people. For me there is no medical personal
to make housecalls, no social support, no personal care workers, nothing. And this at a time
when nationwide there are only small numbers of people like myself. Multiply this non-system
by 100 or 1000 and people will die at home and no one will even notice.
Uncle Sam's Day of Reckoning may be fast approaching. And we will have well-earned every
bit of suffering headed our way.
Funny thing, b was right - China (and online deliveries as well really) managed to snuff the
spread out well, and it seems that the rest of the world and their 'representative
bureaucracies' will show all how limited they are when a fast acting 'unknown unknown'
(Rummy, how you made sense here!) does its thing.
I think everybody should listen the initial 47 minutes
Notable quotes:
"... Wanted to add that the malaise that is gripping the U.S. institutions is completely visible, it is not the opaque and obsequies portrait drawn by the punditry, news organizations, and elites. Seems most obvious to those of us outside the beltway that can clearly delineate between the failure of DC and the projections and marketing to the population that passes as wonky prose. Stupidity lacks the clarity, but brings the temerity making the facade not so subtle. ..."
"... Literally the only endorsement I've heard of Tulsi Gabbard - and a strikingly convincing one ..."
"... Isn't it just a question of the profits in the military business? ..."
In the United States and other democracies, political and economic systems still work in
theory, but not in practice. Meanwhile, the American-led takedown of the post-World War II
international system has shattered long-standing rules and norms of behavior. The combination
of disorder at home and abroad is spawning changes that are increasingly disadvantageous to the
United States. With Congress having essentially walked off the job, there is a need for
America's universities to provide the information and analysis of international best practices
that the political system does not.
Ambassador Chas W. Freeman, Jr. is a senior fellow at Brown University's Watson Institute
for International and Public Affairs, a former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Defense, ambassador
to Saudi Arabia (during operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm), acting Assistant Secretary
of State for African Affairs, and Chargé d'affaires at both Bangkok and Beijing. He
began his diplomatic career in India but specialized in Chinese affairs. (He was the principal
American interpreter during President Nixon's visit to Beijing in 1972.)
Ambassador Freeman is a much sought-after public speaker (see
http://chasfreeman.net ) and the author of several well-received books on statecraft and
diplomacy. His most recent book, America's Continuing Misadventures in the Middle East was
published in May 2016. Interesting Times: China, America, and the Shifting Balance of Prestige,
appeared in March 2013. America's Misadventures in the Middle East came out in 2010, as did the
most recent revision of The Diplomat's Dictionary, the companion volume to Arts of Power:
Statecraft and Diplomacy. He was the editor of the Encyclopedia Britannica entry on
"diplomacy."
Chas Freeman studied at the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México and in
Taiwan, and earned an AB magna cum laude from Yale University as well as a JD from the Harvard
Law School. He chairs Projects International, Inc., a Washington-based firm that for more than
three decades has helped its American and foreign clients create ventures across borders,
facilitating their establishment of new businesses through the design, negotiation,
capitalization, and implementation of greenfield investments, mergers and acquisitions, joint
ventures, franchises, one-off transactions, sales and agencies in other countries.
Well worth the watch and hope more see it, especially the presentation in the initial 47
minutes. We Americans take our deficits and the $ as the reserve currency far too
lightly.
Wanted to add that the malaise that is gripping the U.S. institutions is completely
visible, it is not the opaque and obsequies portrait drawn by the punditry, news
organizations, and elites. Seems most obvious to those of us outside the beltway that can
clearly delineate between the failure of DC and the projections and marketing to the
population that passes as wonky prose. Stupidity lacks the clarity, but brings the temerity
making the facade not so subtle.
No, not mercenaries, this is a protection racket. The U.N. address in late 2018 by the
President (the laughter spoke volumes) was about as insightful as a "goodfellas" scene where
the shakedown of the little guy is highlighted. It was the speeches by other countries at the
meeting that was most informative.
A definitive pullback from U.S. hegemony was palpable, real, and un-moderated. Large and
small countries all expressed an unwillingness to be held under the thumb of the global
bully. This is the result of having an over abundance of a particle within D.C.; not the
electron, photon, or neutron...but the moron.
So, while I see Bernie heading for an electoral win quite possibly large enough to
prevent the DNC from cheating him out of the Democratic nomination, should he win the
Presidency, preventing him from dying of "a heart attack" before his inauguration may well
be a challenge. Paranoid? Maybe, but who can say? President Sanders may need an
extraordinary level of protection just to stay alive.
That's exactly one of the several reasons he should pick Tulsi Gabbard as his VP. The
voters might finally get a little suspicious if she *also* keels over from a "heart attack"
age 38. And the "Deep State" hate her so much more than Sanders, they'd hire an extra
food-taster for him.
Since today's Democrats are so big on race/gender issues plus "military service,"
nominating America's first non-white woman as a VP and a war veteran would check all the
boxes.
@TG I suspect that
the current Bernie on open borders is just a phase before the nomination. A salute to Demo
idiocy.
Bernie's close associate Gabbard has been quietly talking sense on the border issue for
quite some time.
This is an issue on which Trump has himself waffled a lot and delivered very little. It
would be looking a gift horse in the mouth if Bernie were not to run with the border issue
against Trump.
Bernie's close associate Gabbard has been quietly talking sense on the border issue for
quite some time.
What has Gabbard said in particular that is so sensible? The best I've heard from her is
that, well, we have to have some sort of control of our borders. But she is for another mass
amnesty. I can see how that can seem "pragmatic," but it is just an invitation for more large
scale illegal immigration.
Who is a closer associate of Sanders, Gabbard or AOC? Obviously the former can't campaign
for Sanders while she herself is running, and Sanders can't boost Gabbard the way he has
boosted AOC, but for the moment anyway Sanders looks closer to AOC than to Gabbard.
@Ron Unz
Bernie/Tulsi is the only ticket I would vote for over Trump.
I sent Trump to DC to burn the place down. Three years later the results are in: the Swamp
drained him. That said, he started the revolution. Now comes 2020, and the next chapter.
I still like Trump. He made some progress: destroyed Hillary. And I choose to believe he
was sincere in his stated policy goals, but faced unprecedented obstruction -- "Six ways from
Sunday". So I don't blame him entirely for not achieving those goals.
But for me, the top priority was ending the wars.
So now, as Bernie takes up the revolutionary cause from the left, I'm waiting to see who
gets my vote.
It never occurred to me, but yes, the idea of Tulsi as an insurance policy is another very
good reason to pick her.
Will that happen? Will the Sanders team see that? Chuck Rocha and Nina Turner are the only
Sanders team members I've seen in action, and they're some wicked smart people. Or will they
wuss out and pick a centrist? (Personally, I think Bernie is sufficiently revolutionary not
to wuss out, and yet )
Then too, it's still eight months till the election. If challenged, Trump could yet
execute any of several winning plays: withdraw from Syria, Iraq and Afghan; pardon Julian
Assange; declare his intent to replace Pompeo with Tulsi as Secretary of State. The list is
long, and Trump wants to win.
Democratic megadonor Bernard Schwartz has started reaching out to party leaders to
encourage them to coalesce around a candidate for president in order to stop the surge of
Sen. Bernie Sanders.
and then we call iran a regime?
Bloodstock , 2 hours ago
Yep he admitted that he bought 'em,,,now trying to cover it up. With the billions that
he's got, I'm sure that's just the tip of the iceberg.
PrideOfMammon , 2 hours ago
And you thought the *** takeover of the USA was still ahead.
IT is done~
commiebastid , 2 hours ago
final nails in coffin were hammered in with Citizens united
In the language of the American Oligarchy and it's tame and owned presstitutes on the MSM,
any country targeted for destabilisation, destruction and rape – either because it
doesn't do what America tells it do (Russia), because it has rich natural resources or has a
'socialist' state (Venezuela) or because lunatic neo-cons and even more lunatic Christian
Evangelicals (hoping to provoke The End Times ) want it to happen (Syria and Iran) – is
first labelled as a 'regime'.
That's because the word 'regime' is associated with dictatorships and human rights abuses
and establishing a non-compliant country as a 'regime' is the US government's and MSM's first
step at manufacturing public consent for that country's destruction.
Unfortunately if you sit back and talk a cool-headed, factual look at actions and attitudes
that we're told constitute a regime then you have to conclude that America itself is 'a
regime'.
So, here's why America is a regime:
Regimes disobey international law. Like America's habit of blowing up wedding parties
with drones or the illegal presence of its troops in Syria, Iraq and God knows where
else.
Regimes carry out illegal assassination programs – I need say no more here than
Qasem Soleimani.
Regimes use their economic power to bully and impose their will – sanctioning
countries even when they know those sanctions will, for example, be responsible for the death
of 500,000 Iraqi children (the 'price worth paying', remember?).
Regimes renege on international treaties – like Iran nuclear treaty, for
example.
Regimes imprison and hound whistle-blowers – like Chelsea manning and Julian
Assange.
Regimes imprison people. America is the world leader in incarceration. It has 2.2 million
people in its prisons (more than China which has 5 times the US's population), that's 25% of
the world's prison population for 5% of the world's population, Why does America need so many
prisoners? Because it has a massive, prison-based, slave labour business that is hugely
profitable for the oligarchy.
Regimes censor free speech. Just recently, we've seen numerous non-narrative following
journalists and organisations kicked off numerous social media platforms. I didn't see lots
of US senators standing up and saying 'I disagree completely with what you say but I will
fight to the death to preserve your right to say it'. Did you?
Regimes are ruled by cliques. I don't need to tell you that America is kakistocratic
Oligarchy ruled by a tiny group of evil, rich, Old Men, do I?
Regimes keep bad company. Their allies are other 'regimes', and they're often lumped
together by using another favourite presstitute term – 'axis of evil'. America has its
own little axis of evil. It's two main allies are Saudi Arabia – a homophobic, women
hating, head chopping, terrorist financing state currently engaged in a war of genocide
(assisted by the US) in Yemen – and the racist, genocidal undeclared nuclear power
state of Israel.
Regimes commit human rights abuses. Here we could talk about ooh let's think. Last year's
treatment of child refugees from Latin America, the execution of African Americans for
'walking whilst black' by America's militarized, criminal police force or the millions of
dollars in cash and property seized from entirely innocent Americans by that same police
force under 'civil forfeiture' laws or maybe we could mention huge American corporations
getting tax refunds whilst ordinary Americans can't afford decent, effective healthcare.
Regimes finance terrorism. Mmmm .just like America financed terrorists to help destroy
Syria and Libya and invested $5 billion dollars to install another regime – the one of
anti-Semites and Nazis in Ukraine
Yup – America passes the 'sniff test' for Regime status.
If you're sick of being ruled by lying, psychopathic wankers then imagine a world,
much like this one but subtly different where, instead of always getting away with it all
the time, our psychopathic rulers occasionally got what they really, really deserved.
4
hours ago
America's Military is Killing – Americans!
In 2018, Republicans (AND Democrats) voted to cut $23 billion dollars from the budget
for food stamps (42 million Americans currently receive them).
Fats forward to 21 December 2019 and Donald Trump signed off on a US defense budget of a
mind boggling $738 billion dollars.
To put that in context -- the annual US government Education budget is
sround $68 billion dollars.
Did you get that -- $738 billion on defense, $68 billion on education?
That means the government spends more than ten times on preparations to kill people than
it does on preparing children for life in the adult world.
Wow!
How ******* psychotic and death-affirming is that? It gets even worse when you consider
that that $716 billion dollars is only the headline figure – it doesn't include
whatever the Deep State siphons away into black-ops and kick backs. And .America's military
isn't even very good – it's hasn't 'won' a conflict since the second world war, it's
proud (and horrifically expensive) aircraft carriers have been rendered obsolete by Chinese
and Russian hypersonic missiles and its 'cutting edge' weapons are so good (not) that
everyone wants to buy the cheaper and better Russian versions: classic example – the
F-35 jet program will screw $1.5 TRILLION (yes, TRILLION) dollars out of US taxpayers but
but it's a piece of **** plane that doesn't work properly which the Russians laughingly
refer to as 'a flying piano'.
In contrast to America's free money for the military industrial complex defense budget,
China spends $165 billion and Russia spends $61 billion on defense and I don't see anyone
attacking them (well, except America, that is be it only by proxy for now).
Or, put things another way. The United Kingdom spent £110 billion on it's National
Health Service in 2017. That means, if you get sick in England, you can see a doctor for
free. If you need drugs you pay a prescription charge of around $11.50(nothing, if
unemployed, a child or elderly), whatever the market price of the drugs. If you need to see
a consultant or medical specialist, you'll see one for free. If you need an operation,
you'll get one for free. If you need on-going care for a chronic illness, you'll get it for
free.
Fully socialised, free at the point of access, healthcare for all. How good is that?
US citizens could have that, too.
Allowing for the US's larger population, the UK National Health Service transplanted to
America could cost about $650 billion a year. That would still leave $66 billion dollars
left over from the proposed defense budget of $716 billion to finance weapons of death and
destruction -- more than those 'evil Ruskies' spend.
The US has now been at war, somewhere in the world (i.e in someone elses' country where
the US doesn't have any business being) continuously for 28 years. Those 28 years have
coincided with (for the 'ordinary people', anyway) declining living standards, declining
real wages, increased police violence, more repression and surveillance, declining
lifespans, declining educational and health outcomes, more every day misery in other words,
America's military is killing Americans. Oh, and millions of people in far away countries
(although, obviously, those deaths are in far away countries and they are of
brown-skinned people so they don't really count, do they?).
From comments (Is the USA government now a "regime"): In 2018, Republicans (AND Democrats) voted to cut $23 billion dollars from
the budget for food stamps (42 million Americans currently receive them). Regimes disobey international law. Like America's habit of
blowing up wedding parties with drones or the illegal presence of its troops in Syria, Iraq and God knows where else. Regimes carry
out illegal assassination programs – I need say no more here than Qasem Soleimani. Regimes use their economic power to bully and
impose their will – sanctioning countries even when they know those sanctions will, for example, be responsible for the death of
500,000 Iraqi children (the 'price worth paying', remember?). Regimes renege on international treaties – like Iran nuclear treaty,
for example. Regimes imprison and hound whistle-blowers – like Chelsea manning and Julian Assange. Regimes imprison people. America
is the world leader in incarceration. It has 2.2 million people in its prisons (more than China which has 5 times the US's
population), that's 25% of the world's prison population for 5% of the world's population, Why does America need so many prisoners?
Because it has a massive, prison-based, slave labour business that is hugely profitable for the oligarchy.
Regimes censor free speech. Just recently, we've seen numerous non-narrative following journalists and organisations kicked off
numerous social media platforms. I didn't see lots of US senators standing up and saying 'I disagree completely with what you say
but I will fight to the death to preserve your right to say it'. Did you?
Regimes are ruled by cliques. I don't need to tell you that America is kakistocratic Oligarchy ruled by a tiny group of evil,
rich, Old Men, do I?
Regimes keep bad company. Their allies are other 'regimes', and they're often lumped together by using another favourite presstitute
term – 'axis of evil'. America has its own little axis of evil. It's two main allies are Saudi Arabia – a homophobic, women hating,
head chopping, terrorist financing state currently engaged in a war of genocide (assisted by the US) in Yemen – and the racist,
genocidal undeclared nuclear power state of Israel.
Regimes commit human rights abuses. Here we could talk about…ooh…let's think. Last year's treatment of child refugees from Latin
America, the execution of African Americans for 'walking whilst black' by America's militarized, criminal police force or the
millions of dollars in cash and property seized from entirely innocent Americans by that same police force under 'civil forfeiture'
laws or maybe we could mention huge American corporations getting tax refunds whilst ordinary Americans can't afford decent,
effective healthcare.
Regimes finance terrorism. Mmmm….just like America financed terrorists to help destroy Syria and Libya and invested $5 billion
dollars to install another regime – the one of anti-Semites and Nazis in Ukraine…
Highly recommended!
Some comments edited for clarity...
Notable quotes:
"... But after retirement, Smedley Butler changed his tune. ..."
"... "I spent thirty-three years and four months in active military service... And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle-man for Big Business, for Wall Street, and for the Bankers." ..."
"... Smedley Butler's Marine Corps and the military of his day was, in certain ways, a different sort of organization than today's highly professionalized armed forces. History rarely repeats itself, not in a literal sense anyway. Still, there are some disturbing similarities between the careers of Butler and today's generation of forever-war fighters. All of them served repeated tours of duty in (mostly) unsanctioned wars around the world. Butler's conflicts may have stretched west from Haiti across the oceans to China, whereas today's generals mostly lead missions from West Africa east to Central Asia, but both sets of conflicts seemed perpetual in their day and were motivated by barely concealed economic and imperial interests. ..."
"... When Smedley Butler retired in 1931, he was one of three Marine Corps major generals holding a rank just below that of only the Marine commandant and the Army chief of staff. Today, with about 900 generals and admirals currently serving on active duty, including 24 major generals in the Marine Corps alone, and with scores of flag officers retiring annually, not a single one has offered genuine public opposition to almost 19 years worth of ill-advised, remarkably unsuccessful American wars . As for the most senior officers, the 40 four-star generals and admirals whose vocal antimilitarism might make the biggest splash, there are more of them today than there were even at the height of the Vietnam War, although the active military is now about half the size it was then. Adulated as many of them may be, however, not one qualifies as a public critic of today's failing wars. ..."
"... The big three are Secretary of State Colin Powell's former chief of staff, retired Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson ; Vietnam veteran and onetime West Point history instructor, retired Colonel Andrew Bacevich ; and Iraq veteran and Afghan War whistleblower , retired Lieutenant Colonel Danny Davis . All three have proven to be genuine public servants, poignant voices, and -- on some level -- cherished personal mentors. For better or worse, however, none carry the potential clout of a retired senior theater commander or prominent four-star general offering the same critiques. ..."
"... Consider it an irony of sorts that this system first received criticism in our era of forever wars when General David Petraeus, then commanding the highly publicized " surge " in Iraq, had to leave that theater of war in 2007 to serve as the chair of that selection committee. The reason: he wanted to ensure that a twice passed-over colonel, a protégé of his -- future Trump National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster -- earned his star. ..."
"... At the roots of this system lay the obsession of the American officer corps with " professionalization " after the Vietnam War debacle. This first manifested itself in a decision to ditch the citizen-soldier tradition, end the draft, and create an "all-volunteer force." The elimination of conscription, as predicted by critics at the time, created an ever-growing civil-military divide, even as it increased public apathy regarding America's wars by erasing whatever " skin in the game " most citizens had. ..."
"... One group of generals, however, reportedly now does have it out for President Trump -- but not because they're opposed to endless war. Rather, they reportedly think that The Donald doesn't "listen enough to military advice" on, you know, how to wage war forever and a day. ..."
"... That beast, first identified by President Dwight D. Eisenhower, is now on steroids as American commanders in retirement regularly move directly from the military onto the boards of the giant defense contractors, a reality which only contributes to the dearth of Butlers in the military retiree community. For all the corruption of his time, the Pentagon didn't yet exist and the path from the military to, say, United Fruit Company, Standard Oil, or other typical corporate giants of that moment had yet to be normalized for retiring generals and admirals. Imagine what Butler would have had to say about the modern phenomenon of the " revolving door " in Washington. ..."
"... Today, generals don't seem to have a thought of their own even in retirement. And more's the pity... ..."
"... Am I the only one to notice that Hollywood and it's film distributors have gone full bore on "war" productions, glorifying these historical events while using poetic license to rewrite history. Prepping the numbheads. ..."
"... Forget rank. As Mr Sjursen implies, dissidents are no longer allowed in the higher ranks. "They" made sure to fix this as Mr Butler had too much of a mind of his own (US education system also programmed against creative, charismatic thinkers, btw). ..."
"... Today, the "Masters of the Permawars" refer to the international extortion, MIC, racket as "Defending American Interests"! .....With never any explanation to the public/American taxpayer just what "American Interests" the incredible expenditures of American lives, blood, and treasure are being defended! ..."
"... "The Americans follow the principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous." - Jospeh Goebbels ..."
"... The greatest anti-imperialist of our times is Michael Parenti: ..."
"... The obvious types of American fascists are dealt with on the air and in the press. These demagogues and stooges are fronts for others. Dangerous as these people may be, they are not so significant as thousands of other people who have never been mentioned. The really dangerous American fascists are not those who are hooked up directly or indirectly with the Axis. The FBI has its finger on those. The dangerous American fascist is the man who wants to do in the United States in an American way what Hitler did in Germany in a Prussian way. The American fascist would prefer not to use violence. His method is to poison the channels of public information. With a fascist the problem is never how best to present the truth to the public but how best to use the news to deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money or more power. ..."
"... If we define an American fascist as one who in case of conflict puts money and power ahead of human beings, then there are undoubtedly several million fascists in the United States. There are probably several hundred thousand if we narrow the definition to include only those who in their search for money and power are ruthless and deceitful. Most American fascists are enthusiastically supporting the war effort. ..."
There once lived an odd little man - five feet nine inches tall and barely 140 pounds
sopping wet - who rocked the lecture circuit and the nation itself. For all but a few activist
insiders and scholars, U.S. Marine Corps Major General Smedley Darlington Butler is now lost to
history. Yet more than a century ago, this strange contradiction
of a man would become a national war hero, celebrated in pulp adventure novels, and then, 30
years later, as one of this country's most prominent antiwar and anti-imperialist
dissidents.
Raised in West Chester, Pennsylvania, and educated in Quaker (pacifist) schools, the son of
an influential congressman, he would end up serving in nearly all of America's " Banana Wars " from 1898 to
1931. Wounded in combat and a rare recipient of two Congressional Medals of Honor, he would
retire as the youngest, most decorated major general in the Marines.
A teenage officer and a certified hero during an international intervention in the Chinese
Boxer Rebellion
of 1900, he would later become a constabulary leader of the Haitian gendarme, the police chief
of Philadelphia (while on an approved absence from the military), and a proponent of Marine
Corps football. In more standard fashion, he would serve in battle as well as in what might
today be labeled peacekeeping , counterinsurgency , and
advise-and-assist missions in Cuba, China, the Philippines, Panama, Nicaragua, Mexico,
Haiti, France, and China (again). While he showed early signs of skepticism about some of those
imperial campaigns or, as they were sardonically called by critics at the time, " Dollar Diplomacy "
operations -- that is, military campaigns waged on behalf of U.S. corporate business interests
-- until he retired he remained the prototypical loyal Marine.
But after retirement, Smedley Butler changed his tune. He began to blast the
imperialist foreign policy and interventionist bullying in which he'd only recently played such
a prominent part. Eventually, in 1935 during the Great Depression, in what became a classic
passage in his memoir, which he
titled "War Is a Racket," he wrote:
"I spent thirty-three years and four months in active military service... And during
that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle-man for Big Business, for Wall
Street, and for the Bankers."
Seemingly overnight, the famous war hero transformed himself into an equally acclaimed
antiwar speaker and activist in a politically turbulent era. Those were, admittedly, uncommonly
anti-interventionist years, in which veterans and politicians alike promoted what (for America,
at least) had been fringe ideas. This was, after all, the height of what later pro-war
interventionists would pejoratively label American " isolationism ."
Nonetheless, Butler was unique (for that moment and certainly for our own) in his
unapologetic amenability to left-wing domestic politics and materialist critiques of American
militarism. In the last years of his life, he would face increasing criticism from his former
admirer, President Franklin D. Roosevelt, the military establishment, and the interventionist
press. This was particularly true after Adolf Hitler's Nazi Germany invaded Poland and later
France. Given the severity of the Nazi threat to mankind, hindsight undoubtedly proved Butler's
virulent opposition to U.S. intervention in World War II wrong.
Nevertheless, the long-term erasure of his decade of antiwar and anti-imperialist activism
and the assumption that all his assertions were irrelevant has proven historically deeply
misguided. In the wake of America's brief but bloody entry into the First World War, the
skepticism of Butler (and a significant part of an entire generation of veterans) about
intervention in a new European bloodbath should have been understandable. Above all, however,
his critique of American militarism of an earlier imperial era in the Pacific and in Latin
America remains prescient and all too timely today, especially coming as it did from one of the
most decorated and high-ranking general officers of his time. (In the era of the never-ending
war on terror, such a phenomenon is quite literally inconceivable.)
Smedley Butler's Marine Corps and the military of his day was, in certain ways, a different
sort of organization than today's highly professionalized armed forces. History rarely repeats
itself, not in a literal sense anyway. Still, there are some disturbing similarities between
the careers of Butler and today's generation of
forever-war fighters. All of them served repeated tours of duty in (mostly) unsanctioned
wars around the world. Butler's conflicts may have stretched west from Haiti across the oceans
to China, whereas today's generals mostly lead missions from West Africa east to Central Asia,
but both sets of conflicts seemed perpetual in their day and were motivated by barely concealed
economic and imperial interests.
Nonetheless, whereas this country's imperial campaigns of the first third of the twentieth
century generated a Smedley Butler, the hyper-interventionism of the first decades of this
century hasn't produced a single even faintly comparable figure. Not one. Zero. Zilch. Why that
is matters and illustrates much about the U.S. military establishment and contemporary national
culture, none of it particularly encouraging.
Why No Antiwar Generals
When Smedley Butler retired in 1931, he was one of three Marine Corps major generals holding
a rank just below that of only the Marine commandant and the Army chief of staff. Today, with
about 900 generals and admirals currently serving on active duty, including 24 major
generals in the Marine Corps alone, and with scores of flag officers retiring annually, not a
single one has offered genuine public opposition to almost 19 years worth of ill-advised,
remarkably unsuccessful American wars . As for the most senior officers, the 40 four-star
generals and admirals whose vocal antimilitarism might make the biggest splash, there are
more of them today than
there were even at the height of the Vietnam War, although the active military is now about
half the size it was then. Adulated as many of them may be, however, not one qualifies as a
public critic of today's failing wars.
Instead, the principal patriotic dissent against those terror wars has come from retired
colonels, lieutenant colonels, and occasionally more junior officers (like me), as well as
enlisted service members. Not that there are many of us to speak of either. I consider it
disturbing (and so should you) that I personally know just about every one of the retired
military figures who has spoken out against America's forever wars.
The big three are Secretary of State Colin Powell's former chief of staff, retired Colonel
Lawrence Wilkerson ;
Vietnam veteran and onetime West Point history instructor, retired Colonel Andrew Bacevich ; and Iraq veteran and
Afghan War
whistleblower , retired Lieutenant Colonel Danny Davis . All three have
proven to be genuine public servants, poignant voices, and -- on some level -- cherished
personal mentors. For better or worse, however, none carry the potential clout of a retired
senior theater commander or prominent four-star general offering the same critiques.
Something must account for veteran dissenters topping out at the level of colonel.
Obviously, there are personal reasons why individual officers chose early retirement or didn't
make general or admiral. Still, the system for selecting flag officers should raise at least a
few questions when it comes to the lack of antiwar voices among retired commanders. In fact, a
selection committee of top generals and admirals is appointed each year to choose the next
colonels to earn their first star. And perhaps you won't be surprised to learn that, according
to numerous reports , "the
members of this board are inclined, if not explicitly motivated, to seek candidates in their
own image -- officers whose careers look like theirs." At a minimal level, such a system is
hardly built to foster free thinkers, no less breed potential dissidents.
Consider it an irony of sorts that this system first received
criticism in our era of forever wars when General David Petraeus, then commanding the
highly publicized " surge " in Iraq, had to leave that
theater of war in 2007 to serve as the chair of that selection committee. The reason: he wanted
to ensure that a twice passed-over colonel, a protégé of his -- future Trump
National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster -- earned his star.
Mainstream national security analysts reported on this affair at the time as if it were a
major scandal, since most of them were convinced that Petraeus and his vaunted
counterinsurgency or " COINdinista "
protégés and their " new " war-fighting doctrine had the
magic touch that would turn around the failing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In fact, Petraeus
tried to apply those very tactics twice -- once in each country -- as did acolytes of his
later, and you know the results
of that.
But here's the point: it took an eleventh-hour intervention by America's most acclaimed
general of that moment to get new stars handed out to prominent colonels who had, until then,
been stonewalled by Cold War-bred flag officers because they were promoting different (but also
strangely familiar) tactics in this country's wars. Imagine, then, how likely it would be for
such a leadership system to produce genuine dissenters with stars of any serious sort, no less
a crew of future Smedley Butlers.
At the roots of this system lay the obsession of the American officer corps with "
professionalization
" after the Vietnam War debacle. This first manifested itself in a decision to ditch the
citizen-soldier tradition, end the draft,
and create an "all-volunteer force." The elimination of conscription, as predicted
by critics at the time,
created an ever-growing civil-military divide, even as it increased public apathy regarding
America's wars by erasing whatever " skin in the game " most
citizens had.
More than just helping to squelch civilian antiwar activism, though, the professionalization
of the military, and of the officer corps in particular, ensured that any future Smedley
Butlers would be left in the dust (or in retirement at the level of lieutenant colonel or
colonel) by a system geared to producing faux warrior-monks. Typical of such figures is current
chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Army General Mark Milley. He may speak
gruffly and look like a man with a head of his own, but typically he's turned out to be
just another yes-man
for another
war-power -hungry president.
One group of generals, however,
reportedly now does have it out for President Trump -- but not because they're opposed to
endless war. Rather, they reportedly think that The Donald doesn't "listen enough to military
advice" on, you know, how to wage war forever and a day.
What Would Smedley Butler Think
Today?
In his years of retirement, Smedley Butler regularly focused on the economic component of
America's imperial war policies. He saw clearly that the conflicts he had fought in, the
elections he had helped rig, the coups he had supported, and the constabularies he had formed
and empowered in faraway lands had all served the interests of U.S. corporate investors. Though
less overtly the case today, this still remains a reality in America's post-9/11 conflicts,
even on occasion embarrassingly so (as when the Iraqi ministry of oil was essentially the
only public building protected by American troops as looters tore apart the Iraqi capital,
Baghdad, in the post-invasion chaos of April 2003). Mostly, however, such influence plays out
far more
subtly than that, both
abroad and here at home where those wars help maintain the record profits of the top
weapons makers of the military-industrial complex.
That beast, first identified by President Dwight D. Eisenhower, is now on
steroids as American commanders in retirement regularly
move directly from the military onto the boards of the giant defense contractors, a reality
which only contributes to the dearth of Butlers in the military retiree community. For all the
corruption of his time, the Pentagon didn't yet exist and the path from the military to, say,
United Fruit Company, Standard Oil, or other typical corporate giants of that moment had yet to
be normalized for retiring generals and admirals. Imagine what Butler would have had to say
about the modern phenomenon of the "
revolving door " in Washington.
Of course, he served in a very different moment, one in which military funding and troop
levels were still contested in Congress. As a longtime critic of capitalist excesses who wrote
for leftist publications and supported
the Socialist Party candidate in the 1936 presidential elections, Butler would have found
today's
nearly trillion-dollar annual defense budgets beyond belief. What the grizzled former
Marine long ago identified as a treacherous
nexus between warfare and capital "in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses
in lives" seems to have reached its natural end point in the twenty-first century. Case in
point: the record (and still
rising ) "defense" spending of the present moment, including -- to please a president --
the creation of a whole new military service aimed at the full-scale militarization of
space .
Sadly enough, in the age of Trump, as numerous
polls demonstrate, the U.S. military is the only public institution Americans still truly
trust. Under the circumstances, how useful it would be to have a high-ranking, highly
decorated, charismatic retired general in the Butler mold galvanize an apathetic public around
those forever wars of ours. Unfortunately, the likelihood of that is practically nil, given the
military system of our moment.
Of course, Butler didn't exactly end his life triumphantly. In late May 1940, having lost 25
pounds due to illness and exhaustion -- and demonized as a leftist, isolationist crank but
still maintaining a whirlwind speaking schedule -- he checked himself into the Philadelphia
Navy Yard Hospital for a "rest." He died there, probably of some sort of cancer, four weeks
later. Working himself to death in his 10-year retirement and second career as a born-again
antiwar activist, however, might just have constituted the very best service that the two-time
Medal of Honor winner could have given the nation he loved to the very end.
Someone of his credibility, character, and candor is needed more than ever today.
Unfortunately, this military generation is unlikely to produce such a figure. In retirement,
Butler himself boldly
confessed that, "like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of
my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I
obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical..."
Today, generals don't seem to have a thought of their own even in retirement. And more's
the pity...
2 minutes ago
Am I the only one to notice that Hollywood and it's film
distributors have gone full bore on "war" productions, glorifying these historical events while
using poetic license to rewrite history. Prepping the numbheads.
14 minutes ago
TULSI GABBARD.
Forget rank. As Mr Sjursen implies, dissidents are no longer allowed in the higher ranks.
"They" made sure to fix this as Mr Butler had too much of a mind of his own (US education
system also programmed against creative, charismatic thinkers, btw).
The US Space Force has been created as part of a plan to disclose the deep state's Secret
Space Program (SSP), which has been active for decades, and which has utilized, and repressed,
advanced technologies that would provide free, unlimited renewable energy, and thus eliminate
hunger and poverty on a planetary scale.
14 minutes ago
What imperialism?
We are spreading freedumb and dumbocracy.
We are saving the world from socialism and communism.
We are energy independent, with innate exceptionalism and #MAGA# will usher in a new era
of American prosperity.
Any and all accusations of USSA imperialism, are made by the "woke" and those jealous of
the greatest Capitalist system in the world.
The swamp is being drained as I speak, and therefore will continue with unwavering
support for my 5x draft dodging, Zionist supporting, multiple times bankrupt, keeper of
broken promises POTUS.
Smedley Butler's book is not worthy of reading once you have the seminal work known as
"The Art Of The Deal"
Sadly enough, in the age of Trump, as numerous
polls demonstrate, the U.S. military is the only public institution
Americans still truly trust. Under the circumstances, how useful it would be
to have a high-ranking, highly decorated, charismatic retired general in the
Butler mold galvanize an apathetic public around those forever wars of ours.
Unfortunately, the likelihood of that is practically nil, given the military
system of our moment.
This is why I feel an oath keeping constitutionally oriented American
general is what we need in power, clear out all 545 criminals in office now,
review their finances (and most of them will roll over on the others) and
punish accordingly, then the lobbyist, how many of them worked against the
country? You know what we do with those.
And then, finally, Hollywood, oh yes I long to see that **** hole burn with
everyone in it.
30 minutes ago
Republicrat: the two faces of the moar war whore.
32 minutes ago
Given the severity of the Nazi threat to mankind
Do tell, from what I've read the Nazis were really only a threat to a few
groups, the rest of us didn't need to worry.
35 minutes ago
Today, the "Masters
of the Permawars" refer to the international extortion, MIC, racket as
"Defending American Interests"! .....With never any explanation to the
public/American taxpayer just what "American Interests" the incredible
expenditures of American lives, blood, and treasure are being defended!
Why are we sending our children out into the hellholes of the world to be
maimed and killed in the fauxjew banksters' quest for world domination.
How stupid can we be!
41 minutes ago
(Edited) "Smedley Butler"... The last
time the UCMJ was actually used before being permanently turned into a "door
stop"!
49 minutes ago
He was correct about our staying out of WWII. Which, BTW,
would have never happened if we had stayed out of WWI.
22 minutes ago
(Edited)
Both wars were about the international fauxjew imposition of debt-money central
bankstering.
Both wars were promulgated by the Financial oligarchyof New York. The communist Red Army
of Russia was funded and supplied by the Financial oligarchyof New York. It was American Financial oligarchythat built the Russian Red Army that vexed the world and created the Cold War.
How many hundreds of millions of goyim were sacrificed to create both the
Russian and the Chinese Satanic behemoths.......and the communist horror that
is now embedded in American academia, publishing, American politics, so-called
news, entertainment, The worldwide Catholic religion, the Pentagon, and the
American deep state.......and more!
How stupid can we be. Every generation has the be dragged, kicking and
screaming, out of the eternal maw of historical ignorance to avoid falling back
into the myriad dark hellholes of history. As we all should know, people who
forget their own history are doomed to repeat it.
53 minutes ago
Today's
General is a robot with with a DNA.
54 minutes ago
All the General Staff is a
bunch of #asskissinglittlechickenshits
57 minutes ago
want to stop senseless
Empire wars>>well do this
War = jobs and profit..we get work "THEY" get the profit.. If we taxed all
war related profit at 99% how many wars would our rulers start? 1 hour ago
Here
is a simple straightforward trading maxim that might apply here: if it works or
is working keep doing it, but if it doesn't work or stops working, then STOP
doing it. There are plenty of people, now poorer, for not adhering to that
simple principle. Where is the Taxpayer's return on investment from the Combat
taking place on their behalf around the globe? 'Nuff said - it isn't working.
It is making a microscopic few richer & all others poorer so STOP doing it.
36 seconds ago We don't have to look far to figure out who they are that are
getting rich off the fauxjew permawars.
How can we be so stupid???
1 hour ago
See also:
TULSI GABBARD
1 hour ago
The main reason you don't see the generals
criticizing is that the current crop have not been in actual long term direct
combat with the enemy and have mostly been bureaucratic paper pushers.
Take the
Marine Major General who is the current commander of CENTCOM. By the time he
got into the Iraq/Afghanistan war he was already a Lieutenant Colonel and far
removed from direct action.
He was only there on and off for a few years. Here
are some of his other career highlights aft as they appear on his official
bio:
2006-07: he served as the Military Secretary to the 33rd and 34th
Commandants of the Marine Corps
2008: he was selected by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to be the
Director of the Chairman's New Administration Transition Team (CNATT)
2009: he reported to the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in
Kabul, Afghanistan to serve as the Deputy to the Deputy Chief of Staff (DCOS)
for Stability. ..... Deputy to the Deputy for Stability ???? WTF is that?
2010: he was assigned as the Director, Strategy, Plans, and Policy (J-5) for
the U.S. Central Command
2012: he reported to Headquarters Marine Corps to serve as the Marine Corps
Representative to the Quadrennial Defense Review
In short, these top guys aren't warriors they're bureaucrats so why would we
expect them to be honest brokers of the truth?
51 minutes ago
are U saying
Chesty Puller he's NOT? 1 hour ago
(Edited) The purpose of war is to ensure
that the
Federal Reserve Note remains the world reserve paper currency of choice by
keeping it relevant and in demand across the globe by forcing pesky energy
producing nations to trade with it exclusively.
It is a 49 year old policy created by the private owners of quasi public
institutions called
central banks to ensure they remain the Wizards of Oz
doing gods work conjuring magic paper into existence with a secret
spell known as issuing credit.
How else is a technologically advanced society of billions of people
supposed to function w/out this
divinely inspired paper?
1 hour ago
Goebbels in "Churchill's Lie Factory"
where he said: "The Americans follow the principle that when one lies, one
should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of
looking ridiculous." - Jospeh Goebbels, "Aus Churchills Lügenfabrik,"
12. january 1941, Die Zeit ohne Beispiel
1 hour ago
The greatest
anti-imperialist of our times is Michael Parenti:
Imperialism has been the most powerful force in world history over the last
four or five centuries, carving up whole continents while oppressing indigenous
peoples and obliterating entire civilizations. Yet, it is seldom accorded any
serious attention by our academics, media commentators, and political leaders.
When not ignored outright, the subject of imperialism has been sanitized, so
that empires become "commonwealths," and colonies become "territories" or
"dominions" (or, as in the case of Puerto Rico, "commonwealths" too).
Imperialist military interventions become matters of "national defense,"
"national security," and maintaining "stability" in one or another region. In
this book I want to look at imperialism for what it really is.
"Imperialism has been the most powerful force in world
history over the last four or five centuries, carving up whole continents while
oppressing indigenous peoples and obliterating entire civilizations. Yet, it is
seldom accorded any serious attention by our academics, media commentators, and
political leaders."
Why would it when they who control academia, media and most of our
politicians are our enemies.
1 hour ago
"The big three are Secretary of State Colin Powell's former chief of
staff, retired Colonel
Lawrence
Wilkerson ; ..."
Yep, Wilkerson, who leaked Valerie Plame's name, not that it was a leak, to
Novak, and then stood by to watch the grand jury fry Scooter Libby. Wilkerson,
that paragon of moral rectitude. Wilkerson the silent, that *******.
sheesh,
1 hour ago
(Edited)
" A standing military force, with an overgrown
Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence
against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home.
Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was
apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of
defending, have enslaved the people."
"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a
standing army, the bane of liberty.... Whenever Governments mean to invade the
rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia,
in order to raise an army upon their ruins." (Rep. Elbridge Gerry of
Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment [I Annals
of Congress at 750, August 17, 1789])
A particularly pernicious example of intra-European
imperialism was the Nazi aggression during World War II, which gave the German
business cartels and the Nazi state an opportunity to plunder the resources and
exploit the labor of occupied Europe, including the slave labor of
concentration camps. - M. PARENTI, Against empire
See Alexander Parvus
1 hour ago
Collapse is the cure. It's
too far gone.
1 hour ago
Russia Wants to 'Jam' F-22 and F-35s in the Middle
East: Report
ZH retards think that the American mic is bad and all other mics are
good or don't exist. That's the power of brainwashing. Humans understand that
war in general is bad, but humans are becoming increasingly rare in this world.
1 hour ago
The obvious types of American fascists are dealt with on the air and
in the press. These demagogues and stooges are fronts for others. Dangerous as
these people may be, they are not so significant as thousands of other people
who have never been mentioned. The really dangerous American fascists are not
those who are hooked up directly or indirectly with the Axis. The FBI has its
finger on those. The dangerous American fascist is the man who wants to do in
the United States in an American way what Hitler did in Germany in a Prussian
way. The American fascist would prefer not to use violence. His method is to
poison the channels of public information. With a fascist the problem is never
how best to present the truth to the public but how best to use the news to
deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money or more
power.
If we define an American fascist as one who in case of conflict puts money and
power ahead of human beings, then there are undoubtedly several million
fascists in the United States. There are probably several hundred thousand if
we narrow the definition to include only those who in their search for money
and power are ruthless and deceitful. Most American fascists are
enthusiastically supporting the war effort.
The swamp is bigger than the military alone. Substitute Bureaucrat,
Statesman, or Beltway Bandit for General and Colonel in your writing above and
you've got a whole new article to post that is just as true.
2 hours ago
(Edited) War = jobs and profit..we get work "THEY" get the profit..If we taxed
all war related profit at 99% how many wars would our rulers start?
2 hours ago [edited for clarity]
War is a racket. And nobody loves a
racket more than Financial oligarchy. Americans come close though, that's why Financial oligarchy use them to
project their own rackets and provide protection reprisals.
"... A combat veteran and major in the U.S. National Guard, Gabbard has made ending America's policy of "regime change wars" the core of her campaign platform. "She puts peace over war profiteering," said Carl Holland, introducing the candidate to unanimous applause. But on this occasion, foreign policy was not the focus of her stump speech. ..."
"... After her first debate, I watched CNN coverage of that debate on YouTube and noted the amount of coverage devoted to her. I was struck by how little was said about her. The story included her in a clip of candidates deriding Trump but gave her NO coverage of her other views, in spite of the fact that she did well in the debate and made some sound-byte worthy statements. In contrast, the mainstream candidates got lots of coverage. ..."
"... She completely botched the Assad - poison gas issue. She swallowed the propaganda whole cloth, and when it was proven she was just wrong she huffed off in denial. ..."
"... Actually, it appears that Americans and Western media bought the propaganda on alleged Assad use of poison gas (vice the al-Qaeda linked "rebels"): https://thegrayzone.com/202... ..."
"... Undoubtedly the finest candidate for president in the race. And by far the most presidential. Her campaign deserves more. ..."
"... HER core issue -- anti-foreign intervention, ending forever wars -- remain resoundingly popular. However, her relative low-profile as a Hawaiian congresswoman (compare her favorable support vis-a-vis Julian Castro, for instance), the constant mainstream media attacks (compare her to the Mayor Pete love-fest), and most importantly, her unwillingness to be reflexively anti-Trump, is costing her the support of a feverish, vengeful Democratic primary base. ..."
"... Hi, the main reason the major media went out to try to stop Tulsi's campaign: From the Dem leadership like Pelosi and Schumer, to the folks at CNN, MSNBC and all the network 'news' shows, they worked to stop her because: They are neocons! And she's talking ending wars over there and there! ..."
"... That goes against hardliners like AIPAC, and in mentioning CNN, for example, Blitzer is a neocon guy and he is foremost an Israeli supporter and so on. What, are we just gonna keep kidding ourselves? ..."
Is there a better time for a presidential townhall than
on President's Day? And is there a better place than the Old Town Hall in the heart of Fairfax,
Virginia? Built in 1900, this small, neoclassical-styled building, with wood pillars sprouting
from floor to ceiling in the middle of its main room, brings to mind the same communal
assemblies that the Old Dominion was founded on 400 years ago.
It was here that Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii spoke Monday to over 200 supporters
gathered ahead of the March 3 Democratic primary.
And gather they did. An hour before she was supposed to speak, a line was already forming
down the sidewalk. A man near the front door held a "Tulsi 2020" sign out towards the road.
When asked if he was on her staff, he responded that he wasn't even a volunteer for the event;
he had brought the sign from home. The other attendees were similarly clad in Tulsi gear,
holding signs, wearing shirts, and sporting "Veterans for Gabbard" hats. These were not
undecided voters on a curiosity trip, but the enthusiastic base of a candidate most of the
people driving past wouldn't even recognize.
A combat veteran and major in the U.S. National Guard, Gabbard has made ending America's
policy of "regime change wars" the core of her campaign platform. "She puts peace over war
profiteering," said Carl Holland, introducing the candidate to unanimous applause. But on this
occasion, foreign policy was not the focus of her stump speech.
"What is it that makes people hate politics?" she asked the crowd after her customary
"aloha" greeting. She believes it's the same reasons that she finds it off-putting: "I hate the
pay-to-play politics that rules the day in Washington." She hates the hyper-partisanship, the
politicians "who love to talk a lot but refuse to actually listen," and the leaders who
carelessly "send our nation's sons and daughters off to fight in wars that have nothing to do
with our country's national security."
Taking advantage of the holiday, she spoke about being inspired by Abraham Lincoln and his
1858 "House Divided" speech. She described a country still divided today, on matters of
politics, race, gender, and even "what cable news channel you watch."
Briefly contrasting what she hates with what she loves, Gabbard said unreservedly, "I love
our country. I love the people of this country." Multiple times she used the phrase "Country
First" to describe her policies and her movement. The difference in intentions between her
slogan and Donald Trump's "America First" would be hard to parse.
Gabbard's example of putting Country First was the First Step Act, a criminal justice bill
passed by large bipartisan majorities in December 2018. The law enacted new dignity provisions
for prisoners and resulted in the release of 7,000 people. Gabbard described members of her
party who "did not want to give Trump a win, who stood in the way of this legislation passing."
To those legislators who "put politics ahead of people, shame on you," she said.
For Gabbard, the corruption in the system doesn't stop with her fellow elected officials or
the "high-powered lobbyists [who] stack the odds against the people." It includes those in "the
corporate media trying to silence our voices because we dare speak the truth" about regime
change wars. Like clockwork, when a woman in the audience asked about the
OPCW whistleblower who has challenged the United Nations' conclusions about the alleged
Douma chemical attack in Syria, members of the print media darted their heads up and scurried
closer to the stage to try to get a potentially scandalous soundbite .
Gabbard responded by saying she has sent multiple letters to the OPCW inquiring about the
whistleblower situation, but had not yet received satisfactory answers. She promised to keep
trying.
The candidate closed her speech by telling the crowd, "You have my personal commitment that
as your president, my sole mission every single day will be serving you and only
you ." Her strategy for winning the White House would be "not taking people for granted,
reaching out, and treating every American with respect."
After answering questions about health care, small business, and climate change, Gabbard
stepped away from the podium and her fans lined up for pictures and a handshake. Meanwhile, her
husband Abraham walked the room, chatting with people and recording the event on his phone.
In the unscientific poll of raised hands, the attendees were one third Democrat, one third
Republican, and one third "independent, Libertarian, or Green." They were overwhelmingly from
Northern Virginia or Maryland, with very few from Washington, D.C. Multiple families attended,
some of whose kids presented Tulsi with homemade drawings. One family, with their two
adolescent children present and husky dog tied up outside, drove all the way from West
Virginia.
When everyone had dispersed, The American Conservative was given an opportunity to
ask a question. Gabbard has been explicit in her condemnations of "radical Islam," and she's
referred to the war
on terror as an ideological war as much as a military one. When asked to specify whether she
believes the terrorism against the West is the result of religious extremism or if it's a
consequence of foreign military interventions and their subsequent blowback, she appeared to
lean more to the latter.
"It's a combination of the radical, Wahhabi-Salafist ideology that serves as the fuel and
the recruiting ground for terrorist organizations like ISIS and al-Qaeda, that motivates them
in their terror actions." Gabbard told TAC , "But it's also when you see how our regime
change wars have had a direct impact. Not in going in and defeating terrorist groups like ISIS
and al-Qaeda, but actually serving to only strengthen them."
A Monmouth poll released
the day after her townhall listed Gabbard's support in Virginia at 1 percent. This is similar
to the national
polls where she places last among the eight candidates still running for the Democratic
nomination. Gabbard has previously announced that she's declining to run for reelection to the
House (after four terms) and that she's taking her presidential campaign all the way to the
Democratic convention in June. Where this will put the 38-year-old come January 2021 is
anyone's guess. But whether in the White House or retired from politics, Tulsi Gabbard plans to
continue putting Country First.
Hunter DeRensis is a reporter with The National Interest and a regular contributor to
The American Conservative. Follow him on Twitter @HunterDeRensis .
You are raising a valid question about why she is not doing better in the polls. While I
have not done a statistical analysis of her press coverage, it appeared to me that the
networks have largely shut her out.
After her first debate, I watched CNN coverage of that debate on YouTube and noted the
amount of coverage devoted to her. I was struck by how little was said about her. The story
included her in a clip of candidates deriding Trump but gave her NO coverage of her other
views, in spite of the fact that she did well in the debate and made some sound-byte worthy
statements. In contrast, the mainstream candidates got lots of coverage.
It is my impression that this trend has continued throughout the primaries.
It is reminiscent of the ways the networks treat other strong opponents of war. 1,
Dennis Kucinich, NBC had a rule that to be on one of their debates-in 2004 if I remember
correctly--a candidate had to finish in the top three in a primary. Kucinich finished third
in Nevada. NBC changed the rules on him. He took them to court. The court ruled that NBC
was a private business and could set their own rules. 2. Bernie Sanders in 2016. The CNN
website largely ignored his candidacy until he started winning primaries. When they
couldn't ignore him anymore, they ran unflattering photos of him with his mouth open--how
else could he talk?-but did not do so for Clinton.
I think the lack of press coverage is part of it. She is also demonized by most liberals
and even some leftists. I say “ demonized” because I think at least some of the
criticisms are false, but I am not sure about the others.
And I think you seriously underestimate the share of antiwar voters nationwide and
overestimate the importance of those whom you, inexplicably from the Marxist point of view,
call "left". Tulsi now holds a wild card.
She's still under forty, which is almost a senior
teenager by modern standards, and already on her way to becoming a kingmaker through being
able to guarantee either party's candidates the support of a serious share of voters from
both and of independents for years to come.
I do think she would appeal to just the type of person the Dems want to peel away from
Trump.
I would agree only, from what I have seen thus far, her appeal to a possibly significant
number of previous Trump voters is seen as a negative in the eyes of Dem activists,
pundits, other candidates, etc. The Dems don't seem to have any interest in winning over
previous Trump voters, no matter what the reason was for their 2016 Trump vote.
I think a more accurate phrasing of the sentence above would be, "I do think she would
appeal to just the type of person the Dems should want to peel away from
Trump."
The only bridges she burned were those with the Democratic establishment, which is out of
touch with reality and is doomed to soon repeat its Republican counterpart's inglorious
end. Thus the fact that she burned those bridges actually shows that she, unlike so many
other politicians, is capable of, at least, midterm planning. Not to mention that, as I've
already said, she, given her strong cross-partisan appeal, can easily become a Republican
now.
1) Did Sanders meet UN-recognized leaders of countries, against whom the neocon/neolib
clique was waging illegal wars?
2) And that campaigning for Clinton cost Democrats the defection of many Sanders's voters
to Trump's camp. Long-term planning, right.
3) 55% under a system which has recently shown how the votes are counted in all of its
glory? Impressive.
I applaud Tulsi's anti-war comments and have observed that the establishment media shut her
out of meaningful coverage. But there is no reason to think that she can influence any
large block of voters and influence them enough to be a kingmaker. Not even close.
Andrew Yang, by contrast, could have some influence, though probably more in pushing the
universal basic income idea than in inducing a particularly large number of voters to vote
for this candidate or that. But he has achieved more influence than Tulsi for sure.
Can you imagine the look on the face of AOC, Bernie's ambitious surrogate, if Bernie chose
Tulsi for VP? IMO, Bernie has hitched his wagon to AOC's rock-star magnetism and Our
Revolution's multicultural foot soldiers. No room for Tulsi, who favors closed borders and
open discussions in contrast to open borders and PC lectures.
She completely botched the Assad - poison gas issue. She swallowed the propaganda whole
cloth, and when it was proven she was just wrong she huffed off in denial.
Actually, it appears that Americans and Western media bought the propaganda on alleged
Assad use of poison gas (vice the al-Qaeda linked "rebels"):
https://thegrayzone.com/202...
Neoconservatives' wars for their own ideologies have exhausted most Americans.
They want to stop wars, regardless. In coming economic depression, this view will
rampant Eventually, appeasement will happen again.
Neconservatives and their supporters (regardless reasons) deserve this result but how
about other Americans?
If, still a large if, Sanders gets the nomination Gabbard makes a lot of sense as running
mate. She appeals to the very votes needed to defeat Trump. Antiwar, libertarian oriented
moderates. Any VP candidate with ties to the DNC will work against Sanders.
????? Gabbard is getting 2 -3% polls in the Democratic Primary and is sort of a candidate
who is winning with Democrats that don't like the Party. Frankly I was Gabbard suspect
early 2020 but I also realistic enough to know below 40 year candidate with little name
recognition tend not to win Primaries their first try. And for a young Gabbard her true
goal should have building her name in the current Primary that 20 other candidates. (And
given that often incumbents win the Presidency, 2024 could have been a competitive
Primary.)
1) Originally I thought her biggest problem was past positions on gay rights and she was
definitely behind curve on that one. And getting this weakness out of the way in 'trial
test Primary' isn't the worst goal for young House member.
2) Sanders has much more anti-war candidate in 2020 than he was in 2016 so Gabbard message
was not a lone voice here.
3) The dumbest thing Gabbard has done is give up her House seat in the completely D safe
district in Hawaii. So why would the Sunday shows book an ex-House member in 2021? And the
liberal punditry network is not as nearly as strong (or well paying) as the conservative
pundits.
I am a former Democrat, grew up lower middle class, and a legal immigrant. While I don't
agree with all of her policy positions, I find Tulsi Gabbard's single-minded focus on the
costs of foreign intervention THE most resonant/substantive topic for the United States,
especially in a political system where Congress/Courts pass domestic legislation, and
presidents only have absolute control of foreign policy.
What sets Tulsi a rare breed apart from other progressive Democrats is that she's
unwilling to do 180s on core convictions as a reactionary take on Trump. The "whatever
Trump is for, I'm against" transformation of Democratic lawmakers and media wonks has led
them to support prolonging wars (Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq); red-baiting nuclear stand-offs
with Russia; sudden embrace of corporatist "free trade" like TPP; silcening any criticism
of anti-women Islamic customs; and even libertarian wet dreams of effectively open borders.
Even Bernie is wavering in his long-held convictions.
In response to why Tulsi's campaign hasn't resonated to higher polls, it's important to
remember that HER core issue -- anti-foreign intervention, ending forever wars -- remain
resoundingly popular. However, her relative low-profile as a Hawaiian congresswoman
(compare her favorable support vis-a-vis Julian Castro, for instance), the constant
mainstream media attacks (compare her to the Mayor Pete love-fest), and most importantly,
her unwillingness to be reflexively anti-Trump, is costing her the support of a feverish,
vengeful Democratic primary base.
She's a fool for giving up her Congressional seat. She would do better to win re-election
to the House, make a national name for herself as the anti-war anti-military-profiteering
voice in the Dem Party, and then run for the US Senate when one of the current white-hating
establishment scum in the Hawaii Senate delegation finally retires.
Hirono and Schatz took their Senate seats only in 2012 and 2013 and aren't old,
unfortunately, but Tulsi is younger at only 38. She can become a fairly senior member of
Congress and run to succeed Hirono in say, 2030. Tulsi will then still be only 48.
Hi, the main reason the major media went out to try to stop Tulsi's campaign: From the Dem leadership like Pelosi and
Schumer, to the folks at CNN, MSNBC and all the
network 'news' shows, they worked to stop her because:
They are neocons! And she's talking ending wars over there and there!
That goes against hardliners like AIPAC, and in mentioning
CNN, for example, Blitzer is a
neocon guy and he
is foremost an Israeli supporter and so on. What, are we just gonna keep kidding
ourselves?
(he came from the Jerusalem Post, was a member of AIPAC.)
What, something's wrong with pointing out facts? Shouldn't be.
Bernie would prove to be such a disappointment. The other parrots on the perch not so much as
they have brought nothing and will offer the same.
Tulsi was not invited. She has been denied oxygen in the press, denied a platform in the
debates and generally airbrushed out of the picture. No surprise there. By speaking out
against the forever-wars and against the prison gulag she committed the cardinal sin in US
politics: You don't rock the boat, especially when pretending to do so! But how refreshing
has her presence been in an otherwise dreary, dreary and predictable, landscape.
Thanks for your comment and question. Within US History, there are several such changes of
direction, the first coming with the elections that ratified the 1787 Constitution. Second
would be the 1800 election that elected Jefferson and ended what's known as the Federalist
Era; it's extremely unlikely the Federalists would have made the Louisiana Purchase because
of their enmity toward France. In 1828, General Jackson gained the White House amidst the
Battle of the Bank, the importance of which is touched on in most survey US History classes
but never examined as deeply as it demands. 1844 brought in Polk dedicated to expanding
slavery who showed Congress couldn't stop the executive thus showing the vast--and
foreseen--problems of an unregulated president as he provoked Mexico and stole 1/2 its
territory; Polk was clearly the model for GW Bush. The 4-way election of 1860 showcased the
break-up of the National Democratic Party into two factions; brought Lincoln, and the nascent
Republican Party, who goaded the South's Fire Eaters to commence the Civil War. The 13-15th
amendments greatly altered the national social fabric. In 1896, D-Party candidate WJ Bryan's
"Cross of Gold" speech elaborated the concept of Trickle-down Economics and firmly placed the
D-Party as the party of the working-classes, which further compounded the D-Party's internal
strife between its Northern urban political machines and Southern Segregationist politicos.
1912 again saw a 4-way race as T Roosevelt's split of the R-Party allowed Wilson to win and
transfer the management of the government's financial affairs from the Treasury where they
belonged to the privately controlled misnamed Federal Reserve Board, the woes of which we
feel daily. 1920 saw the reversion from Wilsonian Internationalism to "Normalcy" as
traditional US unilateralism regained ascendency with the rejection of the League of Nations.
Although not perceived during the 1932 campaign since FDR didn't really know what he was
going to do, a return to the social democratic republic commenced with the New Deal Era. 1944
didn't see an immediate change in policy course, but by June 1945 it was clear Truman was no
FDR or Wallace; and by October, the Outlaw US Empire was born when the UN Charter came into
force which was already being violated by Truman's government--we most certainly wouldn't
have the CIA as a result of the 1947 National Security Act if Wallace had continued FDR's
term, nor would there have been a Cold War. The only other change in direction (if it can be
called that) was the adoption of Neoliberalism by Carter in 1978 and its rapid acceleration
by Reagan/Bush which resulted in the Outlaw US Empire being even more aggressive than it was
previously, a pace kept alive by the ascension of the Neocons in 2000.
Some of the directional changes occurred due to economic or social strife, but not all,
nor arguably were they most important, IMO--1800, 1828, 1860, 1912, 1944. In 1932, if Hoover
had regained his office, he would have had to get experimental just like FDR, and the
evidence shows he was trying to get things to improve; it's been acknowledged by historians
that neither had the intellectual tools required to fix the Depression. Here's a basic
listing of the POTUS and there years in office. I should add 1876 as that election marked
the end of Reconstruction and the beginning of big money corruption of the federal
government. The loss by Bryan and the fused D- and Peoples Party in 1896 informed
Conservatives like T Roosevelt and Taft that they had to listen to the people's demands for
at least basic regulation of American Capitalism--remember, the first Progressives were
Republicans, not Democrats.
Given more time to meditate on the question, I could probably cite further diversions in
policy from one administration to the next. But the above provides a good overview. I should
highlight Fedrick Jackson Turner's 1893 elucidation of his Frontier Thesis--
"The Significance of the Frontier in American History" --before the American Historical
Association at Chicago's Colombian Exhibition since it made a huge impression on that era's
elite and certainly prompted policy changes. A week's usually spent in grad seminar's
discussing Turner's thesis.
"Bernie Sanders belonged on that stage with the other pro-war imperialists. With him,
we get affordable healthcare, while millions of people around the world will suffer through
coups, invasions, bombings, mass murder, and mass displacement. There is absolutely
NOTHING (nothing) for an anti-war advocate to get excited about with a Sanders
Presidency."
Exactly! I'm surprise even Tulsi Gabbard not invited to the debate many here still wanna
her for VP. I an't voting for anyone but Tulsi Gabbard, I hates the Democratic more than
Trump and will vote for Trump if necessary.
Frankly some people here seem to be living in la-la-land where impossible dreams come true.
How about some realpolitik as practiced by both halves of the amerikan empire party
when the VP decision time comes around. Does anyone imagine Kennedy wanted Johnson as VP or
Bush I, Dan Quayle or Oblamblam the crookedest man in the senate, Joe Biden?
Of course not they were told to take these hacks as a way for 'the party' to keep the
hairy eyeball on 'their' Prez.
Let's just pretend for a moment that Sanders came to conference with sufficient delegates
that the hope of the DNC to override Sanders with superdelegates was simply too much for the
dem party to achieve without alienating a sizable chunk of potential dem voters for life (the
odds of that occurring are slimmer than a 2 year old Yemeni, but let's pretend).
Even if Sanders had sufficient delegates to obviate a brokered conference, it wouldn't
matter, the DNC would still insist on a 'sit down' with the Sanders crew and insist he took a
particular person as his VP. Sanders could refuse, in which case he could expect zero $$$'s
for his campaign from the dems and worse the DNC would tell him that the party money, in many
cases donated to the DNC by naifs who 'wanted to give Bernie a hand', was going to be spent
'down ticket' assisting all the dem pols up for re-election who were committed to opposing
Bernie's favourite policies such as single payer healthcare.
Bernie would be screwed as even if he beat orange moron as he wouldn't stand a shitshow in
hell of getting any of these "radical pinko policies" through, which would be justified by
the rightist dem senators & congress-creeps saying "Democrat voters, voted for a
democratic president not a Marxist president" over and over until the idiots among the public
had been sufficiently indoctrinated to believe that tosh. There is no way Gabbard will be
permitted as Sanders' running-mate unless she has totally sold out already.
Maybe Sanders should open the bidding with Gabbard, after which the DNC might offer up
'Pete the cheat' to ensure Bernie is defeated, or some other less power-hungry, more
malleable dem lick-spittle.
If Sanders is smart enough to play this game, he will already have worded up one or two
slightly conservative DC hacks on the qt, then make out he's making a huge compromise by
selecting her/him.
He could conceivably get away with that as long as the DNC mobsters are blindsided -
remember most of those DC lowlifes will leap at the chance of the veep's gig since it puts
you in the inside running to be the prez after yer running 'mate'. And offering it quietly
early on would give Sanders the right to insist on blind loyalty - which he prolly wouldn't
get totally, but he would have something close to that
Trouble is I don't reckon Sanders has the smarts to pull a rort like that off - we shall
see. Whatever he does do the odds are high of him being stymied every time if he does make
it
"Actually this is not technically correct
and then you quoted Article 2 Section 2 of the Constitution.
You ignored the process
I wrote on the process in which jim and jane mainstreet vote [the 2nd part of the process]
to select the State electors to the Electoral College: from Link (Archives.gov) provided @ 24
and fully detailed below:
November 3, 2020 -- Election Day
During the general election your vote helps determine your State's electors. When you
vote for a Presidential candidate, you aren't actually voting for President. You are
telling your State which candidate you want your State to vote for at the meeting of the
electors. The States use these general election results (also known as the popular vote) to
appoint their electors. The winning candidate's State political party selects the
individuals who will be the electors.[.]
Who selects the electors?
Choosing each State's electors is a two-part process. First, the political parties in
each State choose slates of potential electors sometime before the general election.
Second, during the general election, the voters in each State select their State's electors
by casting their ballots.
The first part of the process is controlled by the political parties in each State and
varies from State to State. Generally, the parties either nominate slates of potential
electors at their State party conventions or they chose them by a vote of the party's
central committee. This happens in each State for each party by whatever rules the State
party and (sometimes) the national party have for the process. This first part of the
process results in each Presidential candidate having their own unique slate of potential
electors.
Political parties often choose individuals for the slate to recognize their service and
dedication to that political party. They may be State elected officials, State party
leaders, or people in the State who have a personal or political affiliation with their
party's Presidential candidate. (For specific information about how slates of potential
electors are chosen, contact the political parties in each State.)
The second part of the process happens during the general election. When the voters
in each State cast votes for the Presidential candidate of their choice they are voting to
select their State's electors. The potential electors' names may or may not appear on
the ballot below the name of the Presidential candidates, depending on election procedures
and ballot formats in each State.
The winning Presidential candidate's slate of potential electors are appointed as the
State's electors -- except in Nebraska and Maine, which have proportional distribution of
the electors. In Nebraska and Maine, the State winner receives two electors and the winner
of each congressional district (who may be the same as the overall winner or a different
candidate) receives one elector. This system permits Nebraska and Maine to award electors
to more than one candidate.[.]
Rob @ 99 - I don't think evidence of this form has been archived anywhere on the Internet. I
would be particularly interested in seeing how much of a favorite Clinton was in 2016. I
doubt she would have been more than 2/3, and the result not as shocking an upset were Trump
actually 1/1. In any event, if the favorite an hour before the books closed always won, who
then would ever consider the price on an underdog as an overlay? I'm not addressing any
prediction of a winner; I'm observing the changes in public opinion as expressed through
those who are willing to take a money position along the way. There would be no other
prominent reason for Sanders to reclaim over Bloomberg in less than a week, the Democratic
candidate top spot in betting odds, than his strong showing Wednesday night.
All of the legal gambling outlets will tend to keep fairly close in sync with changes in
odds offered. Any one of them getting significantly out of sync is taking a position,
attracting layoff action from one of the others. When someone makes an investment in this
type of futures, it's with an eye toward spotting an overlay. That means a current line which
is offering too strong a return on the investment. The books have several ways of adjusting.
They can change the odds offered, lay off action with each other to balance their money
position, or offer early resolution to certain ticket holders. For example, Trump opened at
5/2 and toward the end of 2018 had been bet down to 3/2. He is currently 8/13 which
represents an extreme overlay if someone is holding a ticket with 3/2 odds. When this kind of
situation occurs, all of the books are likely to sustain a loss. So, they will offer early
resolution. A $2000 ticket on Trump at 3/2 will return $5000, however anyone holding this
ticket may be offered $2750 today for early resolution. That's an immediate $750 profit for
giving back their position.
Now to illustrate just how drastic
changes in the futures betting can be, a few hours ago Sanders was 7/2, he's now 10/3.
Bloomberg continues to slide, from 4/1 last week to 11/2 a few hours ago to now 7/1. Perhaps
Bloomberg will be attractive enough to become an overlay at 10/1? I would consider that price
might be worth taking a position on, if one thinks convention shenanigans will place him as
the candidate. At that point (if correct) he'll drop to say 8/5 and will return a good profit
from early resolution.
The changes in the betting lines appear more discernible to me, than a shift of a few
percentage point amongst pollsters. Notice Pence is back on the board, so obviously some
people think there's greater than a 300/1 chance Trump is deceased during this term.
Aren't you being somewhat disingenuous by selectively nitpicking a few sentences out of
Bernie's speech that merely express an opinion, not a declaration of political meddling,
intervention or war, while leaving out the positive 90%, like his criticism of Bolsanaro,
Netanyahu and Israel's racist unjust policies and his concern for the dire situation in Gaza?
He rails against Saudi Arabia and MBS and the war on Yemen. He's critical of Sheldon
Adelson's influence, the Koch brothers and Mercer and the corruption of goverment and the
greed they represent. He's critical of the massive amounts of funding spent on the military.
That's great, no?
He's sympathetic to the unjust imprisonment of Lula da Silva and talks about the necessity
of addressing climate change and poverty and much more. WHAT MORE DO YOU WANT??? There's a
Ziofascist in the White House right now who just brought on board Richard Grenell for DNI,
(ironically mentioned in Bernie's speech last October... prophetic? Yes.), yet another
Iranophobe! So you can guess what direction we're headed in?
Out of all the good that Bernie spoke you gripe about that small paragraph and use it to
distort as still too aggressive his entire foreign policy vision and pov on issues few
in Congress have the spine to address?
You think I'm just going to let slide this perversion of his message?
Just see how so many comments reek with that same type of distortion parotting YOUR CUE.
Do you not feel any responsibilty to the truth and to the power your word may have to
influence others to misjudge Bernie Sanders unfairly through your distorted lens?
I am sickened reading the comments that emanated from your small paragraph and bet you NO
ONE BOTHERED TO READ THE ENTIRE SPEECH IN THE LINK AND RELIED INSTEAD ON THAT DROP FROM
POISON PEN TO FORM A TOTALLY IGNORANT, BIASED OPINION.
I'm glad you at least gave him credit for defending well his positions in the midst of
multiple attacks in the debate.
If Bernie can withstand the onslaught of unfair, disproportionate establishment and media
attacks (your's included) and win the Nomination, it won't be thanks to the majority of you,
but you will all in some way benefit from an improvement in foreign policy under a Sanders
administration. OR DO YOU ACTUALLY PREFER TO DISCUSS WAR AND ATROCITY AND CONSPIRACY
MACHINATIONS HERE ALL DAY, EVERY DAY IN PERPETUITY? Maybe that's the problem, maybe with
Bernie as President you'll be less involved as armchair generals and have to settle for
criticizing boring diplomacy for a change!
I don't know about you, but I really welcome most of what Bernie talked about and his
vision for the future on this planet much more than discussing war with Iran, famine and
climate disaster.
Bernie will make it in spite of haters, never Sanders, maligners, and distorters of the
truth.
Oh, and he'll DESTROY Trump in November.
▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪
Jared suggests Bloomberg/Gabbard.
Gobbledygook!
I guess you don't really know what Bloomberg's about. And you especially don't get
Gabbard! She wouldn't be caught dead working for that Neocon warmonger!
SharonM and Jackrabbit
Get a room you professional koo-koo spinbots...preferrably in another Solar System where
you can't damage impressionable minds. Ugh.
I feel bad for the Bernie Bros.
He's gonna sell them out again.
Dude has zero pull with his "party", and is facing a steamroller in Trump.
I would be happy to have a small dinner with Circe and friends after the convention.
We can commiserate over a few wodkas and goulash.
"SharonM and Jackrabbit
Get a room you professional koo-koo spinbots...preferrably in another Solar System where you
can't damage impressionable minds. Ugh."
I'm against war. You're obviously just another loser imperialist.
Since medical care figures so prominently in the election, might be a good idea to know why
it costs so much now:
The Oligarch Takeover of US Pharma and Healthcare by Jon Hellevig
"The Awara study shows https://www.awaragroup.com/blog/us-healthcare-system-in-crisis/
that in addition to the original sin of corporate greed, the exorbitant costs of the US
healthcare system stem from layers upon layers of distortions with which the system is
infested. Each part of the healthcare industry contributes to what is a giant monopoly scam:
the pharmaceutical companies, medical equipment manufacturers, drug wholesalers, drug stores,
group purchasing organizations, health insurance companies, doctors, clinics and hospitals,
and even what should be impartial university research. And on top of that, there's the
government as a giant enabler of monopolized corporations running roughshod over the American
consumer and patient.
"But it is worse than that. All the monopolists (in official parlance, oligopolies) are in
turn owned by the same set of investors in what is called horizontal shareholding. The same
some 15-20. investors have the controlling stake in all the leading companies of the entire
pharma and healthcare industry.
"That's not all. Two of the investors, BlackRock and Vanguard, are the biggest owners in
almost every single one of the leading companies.
"Furthermore, BlackRock is owned by Vanguard, BlackRock's biggest owner being a mystical
PNC Services, whose biggest owner in turn is Vanguard. Vanguard itself is recorded directly
as BlackRock's second biggest owner. Moreover, BlackRock and Vanguard are the two biggest
owners of almost all the other 15-20 biggest investors, which most are cross-owned and
together own the entire US pharma and healthcare sector. Ultimately, then we might have the
situation that the whole healthcare sector and Big Pharma are controlled by one giant
oligarch clan (and the very real people who stand behind them), one single interest group of
oligarch investors." -- http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/52658.htm
Yesterday some dirty dog, Bloomberg or weasel Buttigieg, brought up the fact that Bernie has
2 million, and 3 homes, one in Washington, a house in Vermont his wife inherited from her
parents and a cabin by a lake! OMG! QUICK! Call the Socialist police! He's 78, has a career
in politics, wrote some bestsellers and he has to live like a monk otherwise, he's a
hypocrite???
The hypocrites are the ones criticizing him and not Warren who appeared in Forbes cause
she has two expensive homes, and 12 MILLION. But, at the debate she was coy and uncommonly
silent when they attacked Bernie for what is perfectly normal given his career, success as an
author and his age!
But Lizabeth, she cares so much about poor mothers and babies, and shares Bernie's
platform, and yet is too chicken to call herself a democratic socialist. Yeah, with 12 Mil in
the bank and different investments she's got a big stake in Capitalism! And someone
mentionned that during the commercial break she was getting quite friendly yacking it up with
Bloomberg, AFTER she put on the Non-disclosure artifice (watch out for hidden mics,
Mike!). And she's not big on democracy either, since she would rather go to a brokered
convention, than give Bernie the nomination when he gets the majority of pledged delegates.
Screw her!
Oh Lizzie, you showed all your true colors!
DONE, put a fork in it!
▪▪▪▪▪
SharonM
Against war and for Trump? 🤣🤣🤣
Trust me, Bernie's not starting any war at his age, and he's from a bucolic state. If you
think Bernie's for war and I'm an imperialist, then must be a real bad judge of
character.
You fool no one. You hate Bernie for some other stupid reason.
Really, the Oligarch party composed of the Republican and Democrat branches will not make any
significant changes to the status quo, even if Sanders is voted in to the presidency.
Sanders' foreign policy is the Oligarch policy; Sanders domestic policy would never get past
the Oligarch house without significant watering down to be totally irrelevant. Sanders only
"threat" to the Oligarchs is that the presidency would give him a 4-year platform to continue
to put forth his semi-socialist domestic views, seeding the brains of the ignorant masses
with dangerous thoughts.
Voting for either branch of the Oligarch party is to vote for the status quo. All that is
guaranteed are a few cosmetic changes of zero significance. Vote, but vote anyone but the
Oligarch Party!
A positive assessment of the chances of Sanders to win the nomination:
"Former South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg's presidential campaign called on former
New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg to drop out of the Democratic presidential primary race
in a memo released on Thursday, warning that Bloomberg's presence in the race would propel
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) to the Democratic nomination. "
Pete could be more incisive by pointing that unlike his much more financially successful
colleague from the race of nomination, he has no track record on making unwanted passes on
women, or jokes that cannot be revealed to the publics. More seriously, American
establishment is so vast that it is internally divided into various groups or cliques that
detest each other. Pete is a darling of CIA circles, Bloomberg is so rich that he nearly
makes an influence group by himself., but he may be popular among Wall Street denizens who
donate to Metropolitan Opera and snicker at Trump who could not tell Verdi from Barbie doll.
On political positions, I wonder if there is an ounce of difference.
There is a lot of criticism in these comments about Sanders not going all out against the
Democratic Party and playing too nice, but a counterpoint to consider is that we have a
perfect example to contrast his behavior with: Tulsi Gabbard. Tulsi was vice chair of the DNC
and considered one of their "rising stars" in part because of the elites' insipid love of
identity politics, and she is demonstrating the country what happens when you go nuclear
against the establishment. She burned her political capital to back Bernie in 2016 and went
on the attack during the debates she was able to get into. Would Sanders really get better
results doing what Tulsi is doing, and if so, why would he going that course be different?
@95 sharon.. thanks.. that sounds reasonable.. however at present either one of the war
parties is going to win.. i suppose some will think bernie i war party lite or something, but
regardless if he gets the nod - which i highly doubt - the war party is still in control..
something bigger has to happen for this to change.. collapse is a popular fantasy for some..
i am not sure if or when that could happen too.. it is hard being reasonable in this
atmosphere.. i am inclined to more radical thinking as the answer at this point..
"It's time to give the elites a bigger say in electing the President"
Under Trump Bezos lost highly profitable interests, and under a second Trump term he would
likely lose still more. If any of the elites' choices get the Dem nomination, Trump is
certain to win. Perhaps Bezos' reasoning was to try to provoke Dem supporters to reject the
elites because that is the only chance of getting back the business interests he lost.
Bezos is a nasty piece of work indeed, but to his credit, maybe he at least sees the need
of a more acceptable candidate.
"They" have thrown down everything against Sanders yet he continues to rise. His support base
is HUGE. Competition can't touch him. His victories will put him up so much that the DNC is
rendered powerless.
Of all the candidates, Tulsi Gabbard is far away the closest in ideology to Sanders. She
entered the race with Bernie's approval, before Bernie announced. Bernie knows that Tulsi is
the only one (other than Nina Turner) that would totally have his back. I actually believe
that Gabbard is the best candidate that the US has had in a LONG time. If she were selected
as VP she would get a lot more exposure; the more exposure the more support she gets. I don't
believe that Bernie needs to pick a VP in order to garner more votes; that is, it's not as
strategically necessary as other candidates have required: I repeat: Bernie's base is HUGE.
Tulsi is a BIG insurance policy. VP isn't a do-nothing position: it can cast a tie-breaking
vote in the senate; it can act as collaborator with POTUS. In a more correct positioning of
talents it would be Gabbard as POTUS and Sanders as VP. I'd be happy to see Nina Turner as VP
but am worried that the pairing with Sanders would create too stark of a picture, one open to
really ugly attacks: it's hard to attack Tulsi given her military experience (I hate that
this needs to be played, but it's the reality we face). AND there's the VP debates: Tulsi vs
Pence would be one for the history books.
Turkey closed its airspace to russian airplanes flying to Syria and slowed down the so called
Syrian Express. The straights would be closed in case of declared war but the flow can be
slowed down by other means. Hard to think that war will be officially declared with all the
joint projects in energy, but logistics would be a real problem for Russia if things get
uglier. http://www.ng.ru/politics/2020-02-20/1_7800_bosphorus.html
The second question of the 20 series to Putin is about Ukraine, as usual he comes across as
well informed and with ease of verve. https://putin.tass.ru/ru/ob-ukraine/
I guess you don't really know what Bloomberg's about. And you especially don't get
Gabbard! She wouldn't be caught dead working for that Neocon warmonger!
Please advise - What is Bloomberg about.
In my experience he is a conservative moderate.
Do we just describe everyone we dont like as zionist?
- The american writer Thomas Frank has put this way: The Democrats had every opportuniy to
win the presidential election of 2016 by focussing on the people in "fly-over land", on the
people who felt "left bhind" but instead they focussed on the "creative class" (laywers, the
"professional class", hollywood and people from the tech sector (GOOGLE, Facebook, etc.).
- It was the presidential campaign of Trump who saw the chance to win over the people from
"fly-over country".
- Yes, Bloomberg is a moderate republican but he is also an establishment figure/person.
So, he won't be the one that will bring about MAJOR changes that are going to hurt that same
establishment. Including the "zionists" (with or without quotation marks).
- The people who are commenting on this topic should take into account one thing. Over the
years the Republican party has purged the party of "moderate Republicans". As a result of
that Republican party shifted more and more to the right side of the political spectrum.
If you were running a giant organized crime group with cash flow in the hundreds of
$billions, with tentacles deeply penetrating all of the mass media, with connections at the
top of all major western multinational corporations, and you wanted to "manage" the
political system of the country that finances the military that you occasionally need, how
would you do that?
Run you own candidates, of course!
So it is 2015. You've already gotten one of your candidates elected twice, and you are
confident that mass media cultivated "identity politics" played a big part in getting
him into the White House. Because of this you are now running another "identity
politics" compliant candidate, but you have some tricks up your sleeve to guarantee she
wins. Most importantly you have an utter heel running against her who cannot possibly
win.
So you [big mafia don] are confident that you have the 2016 and 2020 elections sewn up,
but even though it is only 2015, now is the time to be thinking about 2024. You've already
used up the woman and Black man identity issues, so what next? The gay man "identity
politics" angle, of course! So now you need to introduce to the public a gay candidate
that is under your control so the public can start to get used to him and he can become
widely known by the time campaigning starts in 2023.
Remind me now when it was that Butt-gig "came out" as gay? Oh, yeah, that's right!
It was 2015. He then "married" in 2018.
"But Butt-gig is so young!"
Sure. Realize that he wasn't supposed to be running until 2024, when he would be in his
forties. 2016 and 2020 were supposed to be Clinton's turn in the White House, but things went
all sideways for some reason. Now you have to move up the timetable.
- Bernie Sanders has promised FREE education/college and FREE Healthcare. Although I have
SERIOUS doubts how he is going to pay for all that FREE stuff, the large support he enjoys
shows very well how Joe Sixpack is thinking about his own economic situation.
- There were A LOT OF voters who voted first for Sanders in the primaries. When it became
clear that Sanders wasn't going to be the Democratic candidate these voters votes for Trump
in november 2016.
Blue Dotterel is not satisfied: >>Sanders only "threat" to the Oligarchs is that the
presidency would give him a 4-year platform to continue to put forth his semi-socialist
domestic views, seeding the brains of the ignorant masses with dangerous thoughts.
Voting for either branch of the Oligarch party is to vote for the status quo. All that is
guaranteed are a few cosmetic changes of zero significance. Vote, but vote anyone but the
Oligarch Party! Sanders only "threat" to the Oligarchs is that the presidency would give him
a 4-year platform to continue to put forth his semi-socialist domestic views, seeding the
brains of the ignorant masses with dangerous thoughts.<<
But the oligarchy and sectors close to oligarchy are already worried exactly about that.
For example, certain David Brook is almost morose. A nightmare that is at least 170 years old
reappeared:
>>Bernie Sanders is also telling a successful myth: The corporate and Wall Street
elites are rapacious monsters who hoard the nation's wealth and oppress working families.
This is not an original myth, either. It's been around since the class-conflict agitators of
1848. It is also a very compelling us vs. them worldview that resonates with a lot of
people.
When you're inside the Sanders myth, you see the world through the Bernie lens.
-----
This brings memories... agitators of 1848, revolution spread around Europe, Hapsburgs
quelling a revolution in Vienna only to watch Hungary, nearly half of the empire, raising in
rebelion that lasted until Czar send help a year later, stimulating dense Romantic poetry
that till today children in Central Europe are forced to learn. Final stanza translated into
English (it has a very compelilng rhytm in the original)
[the funeral of an agitator of 1848 turns into a march of specters that disturb
comfortable city dwellers]
And we shall drag on the funeral procession, saddening sleeping cities
Banging upon gates with urns, whistling into the notches of hatchets
Until the walls of Jericho fall like logs
Fainting hearts shall be revived; nations shall clear their musty eyes
William Gruff:
So, do you basically imply that the next run, after Black, Woman and Gay, would be Latino? In
which case they actually planned well ahead and AOC could be their card for 2032? Or would
that be too far-fetched? (she seems to go a bit too far into leftism for that after all)
"SharonM
Against war and for Trump? 🤣🤣🤣
Trust me, Bernie's not starting any war at his age, and he's from a bucolic state. If you
think Bernie's for war and I'm an imperialist, then must be a real bad judge of character.
You fool no one. You hate Bernie for some other stupid reason."
Here are some relevant questions with Bernie's answers:
*Question: Would you consider military force to pre-empt an Iranian or North Korean
nuclear or missile test?
Sanders: Yes.
*Question: Would you consider military force for a humanitarian intervention?
Sanders: Yes.
*Question: If Russia continues on its current course in Ukraine and other former Soviet
states, should the United States regard it as an adversary, or even an enemy?
Sanders: Yes.
*Question: Should Russia be required to return Crimea to Ukraine before it is allowed back
into the G-7?
Don't care about your dumb opinion, Circe. But I don't want anyone else here to think I'm
some supporter of the U.S. regimes two war parties. Bernie is just like Trump, Obama, the
Bush and Clinton families--warmongering assholes all of them.
@113 James
I agree. An actual revolution here would probably require masses of people on the verge of
starvation. But perhaps there's a trigger event that we can't foresee?
Bernie Sanders has promised FREE education/college and FREE Healthcare. Although I have
SERIOUS doubts how he is going to pay for all that FREE stuff,...
he's not.
and there's the rub, or the common denominator between domestic policy and foreign
policy...i.e. lucre (and hellfire missiles are so much sexier , right?).
if a candidate is not clamoring loudly that the defense budget must be cut by at
least 50%, he or she is being disingenuous, if not downright deceptive, about enacting
any kind of national healthcare, education, or whatnot.
If you were an anti-war candidate running for President of a militarized security state
that is so easily brainwashed by half a billion dollars in ads run by a war-mongering
Ziofascist and one of the highest-circulated Zionist-run propaganda rags asked trap questions
to test their definition of patriotism on you, you too would go through the motions and give
them what they wanna hear so they would leave you the fock alone for the rest of the
campaign.
Now, if you're looking to blow in 15 minutes your years in the making efforts to win the
Presidency and use your power to change that security state mentality, then you would
stupidly answer what you're suggesting.
You're a Trumpbot. AND I COULD GIVE A SHET WHAT YOU THINK.
Bernie wants to restore the Iran deal, and do diplomacy with Iran, and substantially
reduce military spending. Bernie is as anti-war a politicisn as I've seen in my lifetime.
I'll bank on his wisdom over your intellectual dishonesty ANY DAY, ANY TIME, ANY WHERE.
Unlike you, a lousy judge of character, or just plain demonizing Trumpbot on a fool's
mission, I am an excellent judge of character who had Ziofascist Trump pegged from day one
and took two years of flak for it! Today, I've been vindicated in every way. Ziofascist Trump
is the agent provocateur in the Middle East unilaterally, repeatedly resorting to multiple
acts of war against the Palestinians, Syria, Iraq and Iran. If he didn't trigger war yet,
it's not for lack of trying! Everyone is wisely on hold prevailing on their cool-headedness
hoping Americans elect a SANE, and more humane President, and that President will be Bernie
Sanders.
When Bernie shuts the door on that lunatic's orange-cake face the entire planet will
breathe A COLLECTIVE SIGH.
Now go bark your fake purist bullshet at someone stupid enough to fall for it. I'm a
firewall for the truth and you're barking up the wrong tree and messing with someone berning
for justice.
If Sanders actually got into the Presidency and threatened established interests, then he
would be given a non-refusable invitation to vist Dallas and drive past the Texas Shoolbook
Depositary.
Oh sure, Bernie is just playing 4d chess, right? We've been hearing that for years about
Trump as he bombs countries, assassinates people, and overthrows governments. We'll have to
relive it all hearing about Bernie's grand scheme to undermine the MIC by doing exactly what
the MIC wants. You're just another fake following a warmonger.
"But the oligarchy and sectors close to oligarchy are already worried exactly about that.
For example, certain David Brook is almost morose. A nightmare that is at least 170 years old
reappeared"
Well if Sanders does manages to get the Dem. nomination, then go ahead and vote for him.
Just, do not expect anything to change during his administration.
Otherwise, if someone else gets it, Sanders will be put out to pasture, and no one will
hear from him again. He was pretty quiet the past three years. For Sanders, and his domestic
ideas to blossom, he needs to be able to win the presidency, not just run for it. This is why
the Oligarchy will probably tank him. Right now, very few people in the US are politically
active. It is only the primaries after all. They are mostly ignored by the vast majority of
the electorate despite CNN's propaganda polls (which read only 52% interest anyway). In fact,
US elections for pres are regularly ignored by almost half the population, anyway.
If anyone else gets the dem nomination, there is no point voting for the Oligarch
Party.
Do you realize the damage you're doing to your credibility and reputation tooting
Bloomberg's horn here?
Bloomberg is a rabid Zionist who defied a flight ban making a cruel, pompous spectacle of
himself flying into Tel Aviv during Israel's massive criminal assault on Gaza while
vociferously supporting Israel's shelling of children, schools and hospitals.
Bloomberg is a Ziofascist Israel shill Neocon BUSH jr REPUBLICAN. Complete Presidential
disqualification in one sentence.
Now run along with your leaky can of Bloomberg whitewash.
If the State legislature chooses to ignore the vote then your argument is not
valid.
Please see the US Constitution that I linked...
And you continue to ignore Process. Well, in Constitutional Law courses that very scenario
is addressed. In Law, Process matters.
if the State legislature choses to ignore the vote.."[..]
if not members of the Parties elected to the Legislature, pray tell how is the Legislature
comprised?
You do know when (ahead of the general election) the Republicans and Democratic Parties
appoint their respective representative slate of electors they take into account Party
Loyalists who are pledged to vote the presidential ticket?
On pledges of the electors: 29 states have laws forbidding the electors to violate their
pledges.
In recent history: December 2016, Trump had the required electoral votes and the Hillary
Mob attempted a full-throated campaign to have some of the Republican electors switch their
votes at the Electoral College!!
How did that work out?
There were 7 "Faithless electors" who ignored their pledges. Oeps of the 7: five defected
Democratic-loser Clinton and two the Republican president- elect. [Cases are on appeal before
the Supreme Court; to be heard in 2019-2020 term]
When the Electors' switchero campaign did not succeed, Russiagate was the lever to
frustrate Trump's presidency. Russiagate will continue as long as the orangeman occupies the
White House.
WP > "...After a senior U.S. intelligence official told lawmakers last week that Russia
wants to see President Trump reelected..."
UNZ> "...Mayor Pete Buttigieg, Sen. Amy Klobuchar and Vice President Biden are being
told that if they do not get out of the race and clear the lane for the mayor, they will get
a socialist as their nominee, and the party will deserve the fate November will bring -- a
second term for Trump..."
Now then, when will the intel dudes claim Buttboi and Buyiden and Klob are commie agents?
Why already Wally suspects Putin's on the secret Badenov Shoe-phone with his vast army of
verraters... I mean, there must be Some Truth, right?
And if (mirabele dictu) Burner get's 'lected and avoids Dallas... if that, then how will
they change the story and tell us Burner is a Putin controlled Putin versteher?
("We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public
believes is false." (CIA Director Casey)
Karlofi mooted Beard's "Republic"... A proud attempt by Beard, but, alas (!) it reads like
a sad comic... Painful.
Perhaps one interesting point there though > Lincoln's first inaugural.
I'll leave that for K-Man to discuss, if he likes.
I'm all for disrupting the Democratic Party by voting for Sanders in the Primary.
But anyone that thinks that Sanders will be allowed to actually win the Primary is smoking
something. And anyone that thinks that Sanders isn't working with the Democratic
establishment to accomplish their goals is snorting something.
Sanders is there as window-dressing and to lure young voters into the Democratic Party
fold as a "Democracy Works!" ploy (a form of 'stay in school' PSA) .
The Democratic Party won't actually nominate him because Americans would vote for Bernie's
anti-oligarch program in droves. Anyone with any sense knows that the oligarchs have too much
money and too much power and that government services monied interests instead of the
people.
<> <> <> <> <> <>
We are now in a new Cold War. And we are on the brink of ANOTHER major war in the Middle
East. It's long-past time to see through the bullshit propaganda, fakery, and scheming.
Copy/paste Jackrabbit who hasn't hatched an original thought in quite some time tries to
project his professional troll gig on me. Dembot? Is that all you could come up with?
As with Bernie, I might be more like, hmmm... how would I describe myself?
"...This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever
they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their constitutional
right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it..."
Wally is a bit shocked...here's Lincoln saying the Revolution is a Right... And he wuz
smokin...what?
But yes, context matters...read the entire document>
First Inaugural Address of Abraham Lincoln
MONDAY, MARCH 4, 1861
Fellow-Citizens of the United States: (avalon / yale / edu an' all of that)
All the slander being heaped upon Bernie is not going to drain one jot of energy from the
momentum of his campaign. The trolls desire above all for a tide of chaos to wash over the
country. The energy in this movement is going play out on the convention floor and beyond;
and the spirit of the people is not about to be diminished or crushed.
It is best not to give up on the struggle, especially when the stakes have been made so
clear as Bloomberg plants the flag of oligharchy in this election. Only Sanders and Warren
had the decency to react with moral vigor to this outrage.
This is far from over. This is just getting interesting.
Correct, as I see it that would be too far-fetched. I cannot see AOC being managed
opposition, even if her behavior doesn't seem very leftish sometimes. The establishment's
biggest concern with their management of the political process is to make sure that some of
the things that AOC discusses remain outside the scope of acceptable political discourse. See
Willy2 above with his "Free stuff!" narrative for how the establishment wants people
to react... the establishment wants to prevent the public from even considering reallocating
resources away from the military and corporate subsidies to so-called "Free stuff!"
While AOC's ideology and support for Pelosi and such might leave some leftists unimpressed,
the fact that she even discusses free-at-the-point-of-use healthcare and education as well as
living wages strongly suggests that she is not part of the establishment's operation.
I honestly do not think the establishment has any plans for pandering very much to Latin
American identity... there is far too much revolution in that identity. My guess is that the
plans post-Butt-gig are to mix things up... say a Black lesbian or Black transsexual, for
instance. Keep in mind this would be planned for 2028 (previously 2030) so whoever they have
in mind would only be starting to get publicly groomed for the job now. The potential
individuals may not have even had their debutante unveiling to the public yet.
The trolls desire above all for a tide of chaos to wash over the country.
Well, true, but we don't need much help. The Sanders campaign has been a gift to
socialists who can piggy-back off of his demolition of decades of John Birch Society
indoctrination against socialism. But as far as I'm concerned, that's the only good thing
he's done. Him losing will be better for socialists - who can benefit from his supporters
flocking to our organizations - rather than him winning and forcing us to take him in as "our
guy" or us being tarred with any failures of his presidency.
"[Sanders] losing will be better for socialists..." --fnord @143
Not good strategy. People are not ready to go for real revolution yet. They need to try
half measures first and see those half measures fail or be attacked and defeated by the
oligarchs. Sanders losing will cause many people to either drop out of the movement or switch
to the far right. Sanders victory is needed just to show the masses that victory is possible.
People pursue socialist revolution out of a sense of optimism and open possibilities, not
desperation. Desperation leads to fascism.
Many of Sanders supporters on Twitter will tell you that his foreign policy utterances are
what "he has to do" so that the media doesn't increase their attacks on him. They say it is a
con. A lot of others like the people at WSWS disagree completely. I don't know for sure, but
it does make sense to play along with the establishment while you don't have power. And Tulsi
is part of the Sanders Institute. As for Tulsi being VP, there would be unanimous outrage
like you have never seen from so many liberals because Hinduphobia is rampant among so many
of them. This explains how they have have been conned by a smear psy-op against Tulsi
Gabbard:
Anatomy of A Smear: How Liberals Have Become Willing Dupes of Foreign Political Psy-Ops
The most extreme thing is that Sanders would consider military force to prevent even just
a missile test.
He also says he would "consider" "humanitarian interventions" without saying anything
about those "humanitarian interventions" based on lies that led to deterioration of the
humanitarian situation.
Under normal situations, I would think that Sanders' foreign policy positions should
disqualify him. But we are talking here about the United States of America, a country with
extreme disregard for international law, and it is probably correct that all other candidates
who have a chance of being elected would be even worse (compared to the extremists Biden,
Bloomberg, Klobuchar, and Buttigieg, Sanders' hawkishness and aggressive rhetoric against
Russia seems relatively harmless). Compared to Trump, Sanders is probably the lesser
evil.
But I doubt he will be inclined to go against the neocons who dominate the foreign policy
establishment and the secret services.
I used to think that if Sanders is president, Gabbard could be Secretary of State or vice
president. But now, I think this is unlikely. First because of many jingoistic statements by
Sanders, but second also because polls show that Tulsi Gabbard seems to be quite unpopular
among the US population. It seems that, while in Sanders' case the smears in the media don't
work well because people already know Sanders well enough, in Gabbard's case, the smears seem
to have worked. Sanders probably will not want to burden his administration with someone who
is so hated by a large part of the Democratic electorate.
I think Tulsi Gabbard will be needed for something else if Sanders is elected, for
pressuring Sanders from outside the government.
The question is not if Sanders should choose Gabbard as V.P., the question is why he
wouldn't, and that my friends will tell you all you need to know about Sanders and his
genuine interest in leading this country.
If Gabbard is left off his ticket he will lose. If he chooses her, it will excite the left
like nobody's business and he will cruise to victory utilizing the antiwar vote that got
Trump into office.
But...you do have the establishment left who may not want anything to do with the antiwar
and populist conjoinment of Sanders/Gabbard. It may be too world-shaking for them and they
may throw their lot in with Trump.
Either way, I think we are in good shape, barring a full Neocon push to colonize Trump's
presidency.
It is very curious that there seems to me something approaching unanimity-among the
commenters- that Sanders is the candidate who is least trustworthy.
I note that Jackrabbit even wheels out his old "Bernie the sheepdog" routine despite the fact
that the rest of the Democrats continue to do all that they can to sabotage his campaign,
ensuring that his supporters, when cheated in Convention, are going to walk out. Which, for
those unacquainted with the logistics of pastoral agriculture, is not what sheepdogs-employed
to gather the flocks together and deliver them to be clipped or butchered-do.
Of course the issue is imperialism. But imperialism is not an ideological but a material
matter: among the material bases of the Empire is the superstition that the United States is
under constant military threat and that, unless Americans voluntarily impoverish themselves,
by giving vast sums to the MIC, they will lose everything. And the world will disintegrate.
To undermine imperialism in the United States it is necessary to empower the only forces that
can defeat the MIC-the masses, taxpayers working hours a week for the trillion dollar defense
budget and workers afraid to stop making the rich ever richer and themselves poorer, less
secure and more vulnerable.
Sanders challenges this view. And he does so from a very old-fashioned position. He is
arguing that social and economic security should be the first priorities of government and
that, in order to defend the constantly threatened benefits that exist and to extend them to
such popular areas as healthcare and free tuition, it is necessary to restore the freedom to
organise that existed before Taft Hartley.
The DNC and the anti Sanders forces are the current iteration of the coalition of Republican
reactionaries and the Tammany/Jim Crow bosses that brought about Taft Hartley and the Cold
War, the twin foundations of imperialist politics in the United States for more than seventy
years.
As to Israel Sanders' position is one that is utter anathema to the Zionists- a clue being
the enormous resources they are mobilising against him. A call for 'peace' and an end to the
'conflict' being the one policy that not only appeals to public opinion but cannot be
countenanced by any of the Israeli parties all of which have committed their all to
eradicating all traces of Palestine and dominating the middle east.
In the Nevada debate I noticed how the candidates other than Bernie at many times were
talking into the cameras and over the heads of the people in the audience while garbling out
their resumes about how they are the best candidate to beat Trump as if that was the debate
question put to them. In doing so, I think they are really out boot-licking for super
delegates.
Sanders does not seem a pro-war imperialist, and he has SOME positive statements on
foreign policy now, and according to my observations in 2016, we is not interested in foreign
policy and he wants to fight on one front. He also detests the leadership of Israel, but
given his roots etc. he did not want to say anything on that, just some isolated statement
when confronted in meetings with voters.
Now that he expected to be a front runner he hired the most progressive chaps from the
mainline Democratic think tanks, and clearly, you can take them from CAP etc. but you cannot
totally remove CAP etc. out of them. Coming from environment where "muscular liberals" keep
taunting "so do you love dictators", after few years you prepare "appropriate defenses".
"Yes" on "Would you consider military action if Iran or North Korea did X" was a typical
weaseling. "Not considering war under ANY circumstances" is still a third rail in American
policies. So one "Yes" was placed in the questionaire. But he also had a long paragraph about
diplomacy first, last resort, requesting advise and approval from Congress, so it was formal
"considering", not "willingness". Your can interpreted differently, and that was the whole
purpose.
I would ask something about economic warfare, sanctions etc., like how he would weight
"applying pressure on regimes" versus "welfare of the population", how much of deprivation is
too much. And selection criteria for the list of "regimes". Do absolute monarchies get
exemption, perhaps on the account of reigning by the grace of G..d? When do we "worry" about
events during vote counting (no worry on Honduras, grave concern on Bolivia). And so on.
Well, it's very curious that Sanders accepts the party line on Russiagate/Russian
meddling.
And it's very curious that Sanders attacks Maduro as a Dictator that must be removed.
And it's very curious that Sanders' bill to prevent US support for the war on Yemen had
big loopholes.
And Sanders' 2016 campaigning was also very curious for his amazing deference to
Hillary.
Also curious: how Sanders' candidacy is used as Democracy Works! propaganda to
shore-up a corrupt. EMPIRE-FIRST political system.
<> <> <> <> <> <>
If WE can all see that the Democratic Party is scheming to have a brokered convention, WHY
CAN'T BERNIE SEE IT? Well, of course he sees it. But he doesn't do anything about it. He
plays into it by stressing his support for 'party unity'.
Jackrabbit, are you quoting someone or yourself, you use quotation paragraphs without
attributing to anyone.
Concerning tactical advise, I do not think that you tested it on "focus groups" or in any
other way. Identity politics is a third rail in the territory to the left and center of the
political centrum. Some aspects are OK, like changing attitude to work place sexual
harassment or even demeaning. Shaming homosexual is medieaval (going back to a ancient Greek
attitudes could be a step to far).
But there is a need to avoid alienating working class people who do not ascribe to
political correctness. But what would you like to give up as an issue? The right to terminate
pregnancy? Sanders made a choice that I fully approve: prying guns from the hands of the
working people is a futile, alienating, and he did not win so many elections in a rural state
full of hunters by trying that. He is correctly accused of never advocating gun control. But
you cannot run in Democratic party AGAINST gun control, not because of DNC and other sinister
powers (although they love the issue) but there is a wide constituency for it. As a hiker, I
appreciate extensive state forests and game reserves created because of the wide support from
the hunters, and the fact that the hunting in my state is forbidden on Sunday. "And on the
seventh day thou shall hike".
Once I thought about a compromise good for running in the South, namely, why not agree to
hand some commandments in public building, say, 5 out of 10? One could make a referendum
choosing the "top 5".
Even if sanders gets the nomination (a very very big if), don 't expect him to go all
anti-systemic at all, more the opposite I would say. So Tulsi for VC is like a red herring,
he would probably choose a "moderate" for VC.
The following article is a very interesting one, showing the type of socialist sanders is.
His ideas about socialism are closer to the european socialdemocratic system after the 90s ,
and we all know what a trainwreck that is.
Tulsi won't be getting the hypothetical VP nod. Conservative voters may like her, but
true-blue Democrats absolutely despise her. (You can thank the Clinton faction for both.) If
Sanders picked her, the noisiest elements of the media would scream RUSSIA until their
throats bled.
Sanders won't move very far rightward on the policy front as the general election
approaches, which means he needs to appease the Sensible Liberals through other means.
Bellicose rhetoric w/r/t Russia serves that purpose, and allows him to push back against
insinuations that he benefited from or abetted Russia's Great Election Heist of 2016. Today's
rhetoric may not become tomorrow's policy, though I won't be holding my breath.
The Jackrabbits who think Sanders doesn't stand a chance of being nominated are
underestimating the ineptitude and unpopularity of the Democratic Party, the depth of which
may somehow overcome even the most strenuous attempts at fixing the race's outcome. Sheepdog
though he may be, I'm hoping to see Sanders herding politicians instead of voters come next
February.
I'll forever argue that the United States of America's government was designed to be a
social democratic republic. Proof of this deliberate design is found within the rationale for
the federal government as stated in the Constitution's Preamble:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish
Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general
Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and
establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
I'll argue that establishing Justice and insuring domestic Tranquility means not to
promote policies that result in economic divisiveness and massive disparities of wealth--what
that hell's tranquil or justified about Bloomberg owning as much wealth as @160 million
people: almost 1/2 of the populous?!?! How is it possible to secure the Blessings of Liberty
to ourselves and our Posterity in the face of such unjust, immoral disparities?! And I could
go on and rant a lot more, but I think my point's made. Clearly, the best political weapon
and campaign asset Sanders could deploy is the Preamble and argue that the Oligarchs and
their Establishment are UnAmerican at best and Traitors at worst.
As I wrote the other day echoing Solomon and Sanders, it's a Class War, and we need
everyone to come to the barricades and the polling stations!! And the naysayers better
get the hell out-of-the-way or be trampled underneath the masses clamoring for a huge change
in direction, which we might call back to fundamentals.
The longer this Democrat dog and pony show continues the more I have a sense that it is a
false flag operation whereby the most unelectable (Feel the Bern) is being raised while the
most competitive (Tulsi Gabbard) has been shunted aside leaving no trace.
Was privileged to attend a Tulsi Town Hall last evening in Colorado Springs.
Very impressive from start to finish. Estimate 300 attended, many young military, and many
there identified as Republicans including a former CO State Senator.
Try to catch this wonderful candidate in person. Her positions are available in
considerable detail on Wikipedia.
She may be shunted aside by the MSM, but she's leaving way more than a trace for sure -- a
redemptive force for a troubled and divided nation.
With exception of Sanders I can't imagine any candidate on the stage last night offering
Gabbards a position in their administration.
If Bernie Sanders were President of say any South American country every other Democrat on
stage last night would be delighted as president themselves to covertly and overtly destroy
him and his nation. Think Honduras, Paraguay, Venezuela and Bolivia for the most recent
examples.
This country is getting a very clear lesson in the fact not only is not a democracy, it's
anti-democratic to its core. I hope at long last it finally sinks in among the half of
eligible voters who still legitimize it with their vote.
The US of A should do as EVERY other advanced economy did - and implement single payer
healthcare and eject the profiteers from the medical system, which is a public good. Germany
has had universal medical care since Otto von Bismarck implemented in the 1870's to unify the
country - most other countries implemented it in the 20th century (UK just after WW2; Canada
in 1963' and so on). This will liberate US Americans from the advanced world's most expensive
and inefficient health insurance system, with administrative costs of over 20% compared to
Canada's 2-3% depending on province. And Bernie Sanders is the only Dem candidate who
unequivocally stands for Medicare for all - the rest are to some degree or other captured by
health industry cartel payoffs, much as the Dem party is.
Bernie or bust! He's not a commie; he's a democratic socialist, in the model of FDR's New
Deal. Yes he's bad on foreign policy - do you-all really approve of what Trump has been doing
on behalf of "client states" who really run the foreign policy show in their domains? I'm not
sure if this will ever change - no president wants to end up like JFK. But what is important
is to improve the lot of all of us poor citizens who get to pay for all these shitshow
foreign SNAFU's - will they ever end? Not while the likes of Pompeus Maximus is in
charge....
I don't think we should be delving on Sanders' foreign policy too much.
Obama was elected on a "hope and change" platform - mentioning removing troops from Iraq,
Afghanistan, closing Guantanamo etc. and then, boom, Libya, drones, private contractors and
Syria happened.
Also, we have the Deep State, which is the true dictator of American foreign policy. This
is the team of "experts" and "advisers" who will "educate" whoever is newly elected to the
WH. So it doesn't really matter what the candidates state about foreign policy at this
point.
It really doesn't matter what Sanders says on the FP front.
And Sanders' 2016 campaigning was also very curious for his amazing deference to
Hillary .
Posted by: Jackrabbit | Feb 20 2020 20:05 utc | 36
I will not defend Sanders from basing his foreign policy on the progressive outliers of
reactionary CAP. There is a distinct danger that he would be malleable on foreign policy, but
also a hope... The hope is that he collected a lot of supporters who are less deferential to
DC consensus than himself.
The deference to Hillary was a good tactical choice in my humble opinion. He leads the
insurgents who do not favor the current DNC and party apparatus. To win a national elections
he does need cooperation across party spectrum. PUMA is a real danger against that (search
PUMA 2008 election). So he can (a) challenge and shame possible repeaters of PUMA (b) give
good example (c) rely on his feared supporters who are guaranteed to be suspicious and
grumpy.
Bloomberg as the champion of moderate democrats reminds me the candidate for Polish
presidency that Nationalists put forth in 1922. He was the top aristocrat, with vast
holdings. Nationalists had hopes of attracting the larger and very moderate peasant party,
but moderate as they were, they just could not vote for Aristocrat Number One. A lot of
Democrats prefer Sanders over Bloomberg, even the moderate ones. If Sanders becomes top in
delegate count and Bloomberg second, brokering the convention against Sanders will be
hard.
I started out to say that Sanders can't compete in the American Political sham reality if he
goes ball to the wall against Israel's aggression's and totally illegal behaviour which is
supported by Democrats and Republican's alike because of the monetary power the Zionist fifth
column in America wields with their "Benjamins"
Hat tip to that tiny girl born in Somalia for calling a spade a spade. Courage should be
rewarded, not attacked by those who disrespect truth and decency.
On Sanders' foreign policy: we shouldn't forget that democracies are belligerent, that the
link between war and high citizen participation in decision-making was the hallmark of
classical antiquity. More recently, the icing on FDR's New Deal was ww2. It doesn't surprise
me that a shift to social democracy does not imply a decrease in external belligerence. In
fact moderate right-wing libertarians tend on the whole to be the least fond of war, unless
it's about protecting their interests. But when the interests at stake are understood by the
deliberative citizen body (e.g. SPQR or ὁ δῆμος) to be
those of the collective citizen body, then war is endemic. I am reminded too that one of the
most left-wing institutions (in spirit at least) in the US is the Marine Corps: the
polis is a warrior-guild (Max Weber)
Even if sanders gets the nomination (a very very big if), don 't expect him to go all
anti-systemic at all, more the opposite I would say. So Tulsi for VC is like a red herring,
he would probably choose a "moderate" for VC.
The following article is a very interesting one, showing the type of socialist sanders is.
His ideas about socialism are closer to the european socialdemocratic system after the 90s ,
and we all know what a trainwreck that is.
Whether he realizes it or not, karlof1 is exposing a version of the establishment-friendly
"best of all worlds" (BOAW) political theory
BOAW was popular when Obama the deceiver was President. It fits well with his neoliberal
hucksterism aka "social choice theory".
BOAW says that if something is wrong or can be improved, it will get attention and be
addressed because people will get behind the change necessary to make it happen.
But the Empire and great wealth disparity has distorted democratic processes into
something garish - like fun house mirrors. BOAW is now recognized as simply hopium propaganda
and is hardly ever even mentioned anymore.
1. Bernie Sanders is a Marxist who is not afraid to stand up in public for himself. His
honeymoon in the USSR is not likely to be forgotten. He is a communist fellow traveler who has
become a member of the rentier class. He wants to abolish private health insurance.
Really! De Blasio and AOC, two more open Marxists are on his team? Really?
2. IMO Elizabeth Warren is an obvious serial liar who reminds me of a second grade teacher
with enthusiasms for projects that the little children had better get on board for, or else!
Another millionaire in socialist clothing.
3. And, there is Mayor Pete, the darling of the Wall Street population and all the world's
bankers. Somehow the creatures of the coastal cities don't understand that the American
electorate is not ready to elect a cute, openly homosexual man who will live in the White House
with his husband and child. It is not going to happen this time around.
4. Amy Klobuchar - An obscure Mid-Western senator who shows signs of an idealism that might
be a problem for the professional pols. She might do something not in their script.
5. Mikey Bloomberg - The People's Party is going to put forward a guy worth over $60
billion? Really? If that were not bad enough, the man has a long history of total ineptitude in
human relations involving blacks and women? Really? Watch him try to mix with ordinary people
in crowds. Sad.
6. Hillary? Old Deplorable herself? Trump beat her once already in the Electoral College,
where the fraud in California's popular vote did not matter. A lot of people loath her.
7. Tulsi Gabbard. God bless her. I would vote for her but the Gays and the Zionists are both
against her. This is not going to happen.
8. Tom Steyr - Ho hum. A taller version of Bloomberg, he made his money by investing in coal
mines and now is a fanatic "climate change" guy.
9. Joe Biden. He was asked by Jorge Ramos "why did you and Obama lock up so many illegal
kids on the border?" He replied "we were taking care of them." IMO he is and has always been a
crooked, not too smart politician from a very small state. Hell! In Delaware you can know most
of the electorate personally. He is done.
All of these folks are addicted to private jets that they hire if they do not actually own
one or two. Naughty! Naughty!
-------------
And! On the other side we have the orange man. He will be quite happy to run against these
guys. BTW I doubt that he has a billion in cash. That is probably why he doesn't want to
release his tax returns. He came into office with little understanding of the differences
between government and business and still knows little about that. He wants to believe that
everyone in the Executive Branch is his personal employee. He is wrong about that.
**********
BTW. McCabe IS NOT "off the hook." The particular charge DoJ is not going to try him for is
the least of his problems.
"BTW. McCabe IS NOT "off the hook." The particular charge DoJ is not going to try him for is
the least of his problems."
So true...and he knows it. You'll notice they haven't yet indicted the FBI lawyer who made a
material misrepresentation on the Page FISC affidavit either. Comey, McCabe, Clapper, Brennan
are being investigated for their roles in having blown up the Presidential electoral process
in the United States. The DoJ is not about to make itself up front look petty, vindictive,
and stupid by indicting McCabe for spitting on the sidewalk. The Democrats would love to take
advantage of that opportunity.
For those paying attention, this provides a welcome contrast to the way the political
jihadists under Mueller conducted themselves - Flynn, Manafort, Stone, Papanobody. Ditto the
Schiff impeachment debacle. Pure chickenshit made into red meat by an obliging institutional
media.
It's heartening to see some evidence of judgement has returned to the Department.
Sir - if Bernie Sanders is a Marxist so was FDR. They are both New Deal Democrats,
representing the working people against the rapacious oligarchs.
Further, Medicare for All is a bare minimum of what is required to uplift the citizens of
this nation. It seems increasingly that we cannot stop the warmongers in their desire to
dominate or destroy so the best policy is to improve the lot of the citizens. That's what
Bernie is about.
Incidentally, a proposed Bloomberg/Clinton ticket epitomises the corruption and stupidity
and incompetence of the Dem elite. Contemptible scum.
Oh, BS! FDR was nothing like Bernie. What, he created Social Security and that made him a
commie? Medicare for all would beggar us unless we ration care like they do in places like
Canada.
The optics of the non-prosecution of McCabe is not looking good when the DOJ have
prosecuted Stone and Flynn for the same thing. There's no doubt we have a 2-tier justice
system with a very corrupt prosecutorial system and a judiciary in lock step with them. The
FISA court exemplifies this.
As far as the Orangeman is concerned he seems not much different than all the others. At
the end of the day he hired Rosenstein, Wray, Sessions, Barr, Bolton, Kelly and Mattis. While
he's got the prerogative to declassify he shirked each time and passed the buck. His shtick
of being the representative of the Deplorables is just that. He only cares about his own
skin.
He's completely in thrall of the Saudi bonesaw and Bibi's maximalist visions.
The bottom line in my opinion is we have a broken political, media and governmental system
as the people the voters encourage to run it are as corrupt as in any tinpot banana
republic.
Personally I'd like to see Trump vs Bernie as it would implode the Democrats and show
clearly how polarized the electorate really is and how venal the media have become. What will
they do when they hate both candidates?
rationed care is better than no care at all or care that bankrupts the family. I
think most Canadian's prefer their system than ours. Having said that I don't agree with
Medicare for all but I do think that individuals and families who cannot afford medical
insurance should have affordable options available to them.
To help clarify Sander's world view, I'll present to this this snippet from a recent
interview where he brings up modern-day China:
"It wasn't so many decades ago that there was mass starvation in China. All right? There
is not mass starvation today and people have got -- the government has got to take credit for
the fact that there is now a middle class in China. No one denies that more people in China
have a higher standard of living than use to be the case. All right? That's the reality.
On the other hand, China is a dictatorship. It does not tolerate democracy, i.e., what
they're doing in Hong Kong. They do not tolerate independent trade unions and the Communist
Party rules with a pretty iron fist. So, and by the way, in recent years, Xi has made the
situation even worse. So, I mean, I'll give, you give people credit where it is due. But you
have to maintain values of democracy and human rights and certainly that does not exist in
China."
One bonfire that refuses to die and flamed up again today - Crowdstrike and the media's total
refusal to even mention its name, which was the really critical part of the Ukrainian phone
call. Not their phony quid pro quo.
All Democrat candidates need to questioned about Crowdstrike, since it led to two failed
major Democrat-led actions against President Trump - The Mueller investigation and the
Democrat impeachment.
Following article underscores what Larry Johnson has been reporting for years:
Sander is a no 'Marxist' at all.
I agree with this quote
from Krugman (a Clinton guy):
The thing is, Bernie Sanders isn't actually a socialist in any normal sense of the term. He
doesn't want to nationalize our major industries and replace markets with central planning;
he has expressed admiration, not for Venezuela, but for Denmark. He's basically what
Europeans would call a social democrat -- and social democracies like Denmark are, in fact,
quite nice places to live, with societies that are, if anything, freer than our own.
The social democrat have always hated and fought against the communists who are the real
Marxists.
FDR strongly warned not to unionize government employees.
Sanders demands all workers shall be unionized, which is the backbone of the Green New
Deal - mandatory union membership, creating vast slush funds of union dues going directly to
the Democrat party.
What happened to the speculation that breaking the whole " Trump coup" conspiracy would take
down all government agencies, including the Gang of 8?
Consequently, more than the Democrats are interested in burying any loose threads that
could cause something much larger to unravel? Wolfe gets off. McCabe gets off. Page/Strozk
leer smugly over glasses of wine. Clapper-Bernnan-Comey free as birds.
The reality should not be so much about the personalities, as the processes driving them. We
have this ideal of a nation of laws, not men, but the principle doesn't run that deep.
The medical situation, for instance, is rife with fraud and abuse. While some waste is
necessary, the whole trial and error thing, our country's medical system is more about
siphoning value out of the community, than effectively understanding the necessities of
healthcare and trying to adequately provide for them, to the extent possible.
Which is not so much a healthcare issue, as it is a financial system issue. Here is a very
insightful essay from Naked Capitalism, that could be applied across many fields;
Good luck getting rid of the private insurance companies, lobbies, lawyers, accountants, and
other third party beneficiaries of the private insurance market. United Healthcare has
revenues of nearly a quarter trillion dollars just by itself. It's better to focus on what is
possible instead of what is noble.
It is the same reason we won't be able to end all the wars, and simplify the tax code in a
meaningful way. Intuit (the maker of TurboTax) is one of the largest supporters of
complicating the forms and processes by which to file taxes.
The bottom line is that these are massive, structural changes that they would take
constitutional amendments to fix since every 4-8 years some carpetbagger shows up seeking to
undo what the other carpetbaggers did, and the only thing they do is create another cottage
industry regulated by an equally large bureaucracy.
If you want to champion anything, start with campaign finance reform since everything else
is just noise.
Our current system already beggars most of us. Expensive yet insecure coverage that
potentially bankrupts us all from surprise billing. Incredible time-suck to protect yourself
from such predatory practices. (Though it appears Medicare recipients are protected from such
price gouging.).
Employer-based coverage constrains job changes, and leaves people without coverage when
they get laid off because of illness. I see Medicare for All as enhancing liberty. Tying
health care to your employer is kind of feudal. Take away the tax breaks at least so the
market is fair. I wouldn't mind paying premiums and copays, with monthly maximum, but
wouldn't mind paying through taxes either.
I am sorry, but my comment to this summary of the Democratic contenders is totally facetious.
(Perhaps that is because if find all but Tulsi people who have been put forward by an
obviously facetious group of people running the Democratic Party now.
Does anyone else suspect that Elizabeth Warren is making money on the side doing the voice
for Pinocchio in the GEICO ads?
Whoa! Quite a few responses - will try to answer in order:
@turcopolier - well I have direct experience of the Canadian system and based on many
experiences, the Canadian universal single-payer system is not "rationed" in any way wrt
urgent care. Yes if you have elective surgery like an arthroscopic knee repair of which I've
had two and my choice was wait 3-5 months in Canada or pay $5,000 stateside and get it done
next week. I paid. The choice of paying for service should never go away IMHO and this is a
flaw among many which I note with Bernie's plan. Nonetheless he is articulating a bargaining
position to attain something I think essential to re-organize the US health insurance system.
WHy as a society are we paying twice as a percentage of gdp than Canada? It's profiteering.
ANd Inefficiency. Probably in reverse order of importance, but they each feed the other.
@NancyK - some mix of a universal medicaire-style system with extra insurance available
for those who want to pay for it (private room, immediate service, that kind of upgrade)
might work, don't you think?
@fred - well, since you ask, and tho I'm no expert in the history of Bernie I do know this
- he was mayor of Burlington VT for quite a while and you should take a walk around and see
how some of his intitiatives have made Burlington more livable. ALso he garnered between 20
and 40 % of the Republican vote in his long run as Congressman from VT. As Representative and
Senator he is well known for his successful amendements to the benefit of ALL
rather than for the benefit of the few, or, himself. He is only recently a millionaire, I
understand, as he wrote a very successful book which made him a couple of million. Other than
that, he owns real estate - who of his vintage who bought real estate has not made money?
I find I agree completely with all your points, except (respectfully) the intensity of
your Bernie blast. If medicare for all is such a bad idea, then I await Trump to propose
revoking ALL the communistic gov't medical care programs (including the free one congress
gets).
Spark!!! spark!!! spark!!! Third rail.
Also, I note that Tulsi's has many more enemies. I continue supporting her (she is doing
better than Steyer and Yang) in the hope that Bernie has had her as VP in mind all along or
else that she will spend the next four years building a support base for 2024.
Barring the economy cracking or a new ME mess (perhaps by an Iranian proxy in revenge), I
agree that the Dems will get trounced outside their coastal enclaves, particularly if the
Dems continue to cheat the process. Nothings says stay home like having your vote stolen.
In the economic regards, the Corona Virus is a potentially massive black swan event - the
Fed already has been printing 100 billion per month to stave off economic collapse for five
months now (socialism for the banks!!!! Get a pitchfork) and no intention to slowdown for the
foreseeable future, so it's not clear they have the bullets to deal with a, at a minimum,
Corona shutdown of US supply chains. With a up to 24 day before symptoms appear, and false
negatives of up to 80% in the very few who are tested, efforts to date by the US are just
security theater.
Even if Bernie were a communist rather than a moderate social democrat, we have checks and
balances, and the Fifth Amendment protecting property rights.
b (old adversary) You may not like to admits that I know a lot about various forms of leftism
but I (like many other former USI officers know a lot about you) I personally recruited quite
a few "Social Democrats" who were really agents of the USSR until they switched sides. They
were tested a lot. I admit that Bernie evidently never voted for the Communist Party
candidate for president as John Brennan did, but his honeymoon on an Intourist visa in the
USSR speaks volumes. As I recall you were quite pro-Warsaw Pact and anti-NATO during the Cold
War.
Denmark retains its Lutheran sensibilities, if not their daily practice. It is very strict
about immigration - very few are allowed in, closed borders, must speak Danish, turn over
assets to the government, and no complaints about pork being on the menus.
Hygge celebrates thrift, simplicity and austerity. If you want Danish social democracy,
you have to participate in the whole package. (Being of Danish heritage myself, I see nothin
wrong with this but don't see many others living up to their unique lifestyle standards -
(NB: re-read Garrison Kielor's Lake Woebegon for further insights into Scandinavian
heritage in the US - particuarly his footnoted treatise on 100 drawbacks being raised
Scandinavian - US Scandinavians will laugh in self-recognition and also sadly nod in full
agreement)
Danes laugh at our US welfare state and recognize it has nothing to do with their version
of social welfare. Danish "socialism" provides workers with buy-in medical plans for more
efficient delivery systems. It is by no means free government run health care or social
welfare for all.
Norwegians are closer to this idealized model of "free stuff", but with even stricter
about immigration controls and their system floats on massive amounts of fossil fuel
extraction cash. Sweden, Finland, Iceland -- all have uniqiness in their social welfare
systems that cannot translate to the US polyglot, poly-cultural model.
Danes also have suffered from high rates of depression and suicide. So Bernie, be sure to
sign up for the whole package, and stop glossing over the missing details of your proposal
for "Danish socialism".
Their system does work for the Danes and has a lot to like about it - but you have to plug
in all the variables, so start by undoing the US welfare state plantation first and expect
everyone to be a maker; not a taker.
Then give everyone a bike to replace their cars, and only then can you start handing out
free health care - Danish style because their far more active lifestyle will define new
models for health care needs.
Bernie didn't win in '16. Rigging certainly but he had no nationwide general electoral
opportunity to enter the WH. Instead, the Berniecrat progressive fire has continued burning
slowly and steadily. Progressivism, in its various flavors, is now THE ascendant movement of
the Left. It grew slowly, steadily. This is the comparison which is relevant to Tulsi's
candidacy. Barring a miracle, Tulsi will not be the Dem nominee in November facing off El
Trumpo. But she has lit a fire under hundreds of thousands which will continue to spread due to
the gentle breezes of her campaign speeches. Perhaps 2024 is her year. If not, 2028 could
realistically be the date she becomes POTUS.
My previous essay, It's the
economy, was negative. Negative if one believes there is even a remote chance Saint Bernie
gets to run against Trump. Yes, he, like the rest of the D's is running against Trump but what
are the plans? Open Borders? Medicare for Illegal aliens? Bernie's got other proposals,
meritorious ones deserving of support. But too much baggage. He is collecting baggage as
adroitly as Liz Warren. Look what that's done to her campaign.
Kind-hearted Bernie is taking up survivors from the Warren life rafts, many of whom are
armed with rubber penetrating pins.
Tulsi does not genuflect.
The same type of integrity-diminishing stances Liawatha has adopted, are now afflicting
Saint Bernie. Pandering on open borders. Retreating before Culinary Union attacks without
personally facing it down NOW--NOW when it counts.
The last man standing will be a woman. The rest are craven characatures of sincere humans,
so phony that even a blind monkey could detect.
Who did Warren Harding defeat for President? Don't look it up--people don't remember losers.
In 20 years, H. Rodent Clinton will be merely a bad dream, to be recalled in memory only by
those interested in calamity.
Bernie started a movement. But, like Moses, he will never enter
the Promised Land. His name will be remembered by even his opponents as someone who began
steering the ship of state into better waters. But his portrait will not hang in the WH.
She is not running for re-election. At the time of the next presidential election, she
will be a private citizen.
She will have less leverage for endorsement of her colleagues than she does now.
For all we know, in 2 or 3 years, she may be out of the political realm completely.
I concede she is the type of person, or the sort of person that would take us forward, but
she has little in the way of base right now, and will have an unknown base in a few
years.
Bernie, no matter how I despise his foreign policy, is the poll leader, is a half-assed
socialist, might actually improve/save lives of the working class and poor, and he is the
start of a left swing we need now. Tulsi or some young leftie can knock it out of the park if
we can just show people that social programs work, and work extremely well.
"The 2022 Hawaii gubernatorial election will take place on November 8, 2022, to elect the
Governor of Hawaii. Incumbent Democratic Governor David Ige is term-limited and cannot seek
re-election to a third term."
But why would she give up her seat in congress for being governor? She sees things in
Hawaii she wants to fix or being governor is a better shot at being president? I admit that I
don't know much about her congressional record. I just don't understand why people feel so
strongly against her. Once upon a time they wanted the wars to stop. Now they are hung ho for
warring with Russia through Ukraine.
"The 2022 Hawaii gubernatorial election will take place on November 8, 2022, to elect
the Governor of Hawaii. Incumbent Democratic Governor David Ige is term-limited and
cannot seek re-election to a third term."
Don't get me wrong, there is much I like about Tulsi, but establishment democrats hate
her, more than they hate Bernie. She openly defied them and quit the DNC on Bernie's behalf,
and help bring down Debbie what-her-name as chairperson for the DNC.
Writing in Tulsi would probably be more a politically correct statement. She is a talented
politician, a rare American gem. She speaks truth unlike the coward and lifelong conman
Bonespurs
Tulsi is the new JFK. But seems America is not ready for decent honest politian with ideals
and aspirations. She think America is capable of greatness. I doubt it. But I will write
her name in if thats what it takes. For what its worth.
"... Bloomberg is not going to get people to vote in large enough numbers to be a contender, he had zero write-in votes in NH. So he is about running to gain support just enough to force a second vote in order to for superdelegates to over turn the will of the people for Bernie at the convention. ..."
Bloomberg is not going to get people to vote in large enough numbers to be a contender, he
had zero write-in votes in NH. So he is about running to gain support just enough to force
a second vote in order to for superdelegates to over turn the will of the people for Bernie
at the convention.
Some people want Tulsi to drop out and endorse Bernie, like Kyle Kulinski, but those
people are not thinking right because they act as if Bernie is not a VERY OLD man who has had
health issues recently. If Tulsi drops out and endorses Bernie and then Bernie a few months
from now has health issues which force him out---THEN WHAT KYLE? You want Warren who is a
proven con artist and neocon?
"... " Don't tell the Democrats, but they are ignoring their best candidate for president. That candidate is Tulsi Gabbard. She is the congresswoman from Hawaii who would have the best chance of picking up the votes of independents and even some Republicans in November. But at the moment she is being ostracized by party leaders." Mulshine ..."
"... Agreed. But she's anti-war, so no chance of being supported by "party leaders" ( those "leaders" is a bit of a misnomer) ..."
"... Tulsi bet all her chips on New Hampshire just like Mayor Pete did in Iowa. I was up in the Conway region last August and saw billboards for Tulsi all over the place. There was nothing for other candidates. She held well over a hundred town halls in the state. I'm hoping this strategy works for her. ..."
" Don't tell the Democrats, but they are ignoring their best candidate for president.
That candidate is Tulsi Gabbard. She is the congresswoman from Hawaii who would have the best
chance of picking up the votes of independents and even some Republicans in November. But at
the moment she is being ostracized by party leaders." Mulshine
Tulsi bet all her chips on New Hampshire just like
Mayor Pete did in Iowa. I was up in the Conway region last August and saw billboards for
Tulsi all over the place. There was nothing for other candidates. She held well over a
hundred town halls in the state. I'm hoping this strategy works for her. I like EVERYTHING
about her including her antiwar foreign policy stance and her genuinely progressive domestic
policy.
I just received this message from her campaign:
"Tulsi is on the rise in New Hampshire and we need to be doing all we can right now to
keep this upward momentum going!"
"First: Local paper The Caledonian Record yesterday released an online poll showing a
whopping 67.3% of voters chose Tulsi as the candidate they would "like to see win the
Primary.""
"Then: CNN/UNH polling released today shows Tulsi moving into 5th, within striking distance
of Elizabeth Warren, with HALF of voters still uncommitted and up for grabs."
"It's the height of irony that CNN's OWN most recent polling shows Tulsi ahead of Amy
Klobuchar, Andrew Yang, Tom Steyer and Deval Patrick -- all of whom were given nationally
televised CNN town halls worth millions just this week, while the establishment network
refused to let Tulsi speak. This blatant censorship denied New Hampshire voters (half
undecided) the opportunity to hear from all the candidates, and then make an informed opinion
about who to support."
I hope she does well in New Hampshire. It will be much harder for for the press to ignore
her if she does.
Bill Maher interviewed Pete Buttigieg a few days ago on January 31, 2019. Bill Maher said,
"You are the only military veteran in this."
Buttigieg nodded along and said, "Yeah."
It was a critical test of character for Mayor Pete, and Buttigieg showed his true colors.
Instead of acknowledging Major Tulsi Gabbard -- the first female combat veteran to ever run for
the presidency, who volunteered to deploy twice to the warzones of the Middle East at the
height of the war, who has served in the Army National Guard for 17 years and is still serving
today -- Buttigieg chose to allow the audience to believe the falsehood that he was the only
military veteran running for president because it benefits him politically.
Furthermore, when Buttigeig's campaign posted the interview on social media, they chose to
cut out the first part of Maher's statement (i.e.
"You are the only military veteran in this.") C'est un arriviste : mon opinion
Before I dive into Shortest Way Home's account of the life and career of Peter Buttigieg,
let me be up front about my bias. I don't trust former McKinsey consultants. I don't trust
military intelligence officers. And I don't trust the type of people likely to appear on "40
under 40" lists, the valedictorian-to-Harvard-to-Rhodes-Scholarship types who populate the
American elite. I don't trust people who get flattering reams of newspaper profiles and are
pitched as the Next Big Thing That You Must Pay Attention To, and I don't trust wunderkinds who
become successful too early. Why? Because I am somewhat cynical about the United States
meritocracy. Few people amass these kind of résumés if they are the type to
openly challenge authority. Noam Chomsky says that the factors predicting success in our
"meritocracy" are a "combination of greed, cynicism, obsequiousness and subordination, lack of
curiosity and independence of mind, [and] self-serving disregard for others." So when
journalists see "Harvard" and think "impressive," I see it and think "uh-oh."
Posted by: The Beaver |
07 February 2020 at 02:03 PM DNC and Media have black balled Gabbard.
Thrashing Kamala and Hillary is an unforgivable sin for the current DNC.
Democratic party is poorly served by DNC corruption and incompetence.
The top of their ticket reminds me of the decrepit party hacks the politburo put forward in the
early 80s.
Moral and intellectual bankrupt.
Noting that McCain and Romney were the previous GOP nominees does not inspire confidence
either
Posted by: sbin |
07 February 2020 at 02:23 PM I'm not normally into conspiracy theories, but I am suspicious
of his direct commission into Naval intelligence. His educational background and a few other
things makes me think he might be a CIA stooge.
And yes, pretty dishonest and arrogant to not mention Tulsi.
Posted by: Eric Newhill |
07 February 2020 at 02:36 PM I had heard Mayor Pete had been an engineer in the military
but in a The Atlantic interview he says he was Naval Intelligence. He also spent time as a
consultant for McKinsey in the Afghanistan but in neither case was he in much danger--unlike
Tulsi.
In his own words: "Four years later, Buttigieg would return to Afghanistan as a Naval
intelligence officer. He stayed on bases for the most part, venturing out only as an armed
escort on an occasional trip. On the McKinsey work, they were outside the wire more, but "there
was no moment of great adventure or danger for me, other than just the fact of we drove from
Kabul to Jalalabad. That was a little risky. But in Iraq we were on base, or at least in the
Green Zone, almost all the time."
How does a mayor of a small mid-west town wake up one day and decide he is qualified to run
for the highest political office in the land and believe he can win. He's either insane or has
friends inm high places. After the fudging of the numbers in Iowa in his favor, I'd say the
latter.
Posted by: optimax |
07 February 2020 at 02:41 PM I have a low opinion of his personal integrity. But then I
have a lot opinion of the President's personal integrity. Its probably time saving to say who
does appear to have integrity rather than doesnt. At the moment I am prepared to believe
Steyer, Gabbard, Sanders and Yang have some decency. But I could easily be wrong about any of
them.
Posted by: Harry |
07 February 2020 at 02:51 PM Gabbard should run as an
independent if she doesn't get the nomination. I believe Gabbard said she won't but I hope she
change her mind.
Posted by: Ian |
07 February 2020 at 03:01 PM Since my background is
strictly civilian, I cannot state . . . anything. But perhaps I can ask, could we refer to this
as " foam-rubber valor"? Or "cardboard-replica valor"?
And it confirms a new emerging nickname I am seeing here and there for Mayor Pete . . . Pete
the Cheat, Cheater Peter, Cheatin' Pete.. .
"The first man who, having fenced in a piece of land, said 'This is mine", and found people
naïve enough to believe him, that man was the true founder of civil society. From how many
crimes, wars, and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might not any one have saved
mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying to his fellows: Beware
of listening to this impostor; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth
belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody.
-- Rousseau 1754"
------------
I gave up my Friday Night trivial enjoyments to watch the Democratic Party debate in New
Hampshire. I did it for you, pilgrims, for you and because SWMBO forced me to do it.
As you can see, I support TG for president, whatever the odds, but she was not allowed on
the stage. This morning she was on the TeeVee with one or another of the babbling anchors and
when pressed over Trump's expulsion from his household of Sunderland, the EU ambassador and the
execrable Vindmans from the NSC staff said reluctantly (and correctly) that the president has a
right to whomever he wants as his subordinates in the Executive Branch. BTW, something
generally ignored is that the two Vindmans are still US Army officers. What they have lost are
their current assignments.
But, to return to the subject of last night's debate - it was evident that all of them (even
Joe) are running on the basis of Rousseau's bald assertion that mankind has fallen from a
"state of nature" in which humans existed in a classless economic equality and that said humans
are hopelessly corrupted by the chains created by the notion of private property. To one extent
or another all the Democrats in the debate say they want "social justice," meaning a basic
re-distribution of goods, (well, maybe not their own goods) as well as a way of life (for most
people) in which Mother Earth is not despoiled of her treasures. In such a world bison and
bears would presumably roam Central Park in The Big Apple where they could be played with by
shaggy men and women in costumes made from grass and other Vegan materials. In that world there
would a somewhat higher incidence of infectious diseases but there would be balance in the
universe.
It is no wonder that the absent Bloomberg (the littlest one) thinks he can win the
nomination. pl
FILE PHOTO. © REUTERS / Mike Segar 103 Follow RT on 
FILE PHOTO. © REUTERS / Brendan McDermid 77 20 Follow RT on 
Gabbard should run as an
independent if she doesn't get the nomination. I believe Gabbard said she won't but I hope she
change her mind.
Since my background is
strictly civilian, I cannot state . . . anything. But perhaps I can ask, could we refer to this
as " foam-rubber valor"? Or "cardboard-replica valor"?