Pollsters didn’t ask about Gabbard in a single poll between Election Day 2018 and her announcement earlier this month, a sign that she hadn’t yet made a splash in the invisible primary.
Al From and the Clintons, who created and spread the Democratic Leadership Council, Hillary's campaign team, the then head of the Party (Obama), the DNC, and all the "blue no matter who" folk who have obliterated every standard but a "(D)" after a politician's name, whether or not they post on political message boards, like Daily Kos, Democratic Underground or reddit.
Those people will make the majority of Americans pay any price to advance the selfish interests of the Democratic Party and of its politicians, pundits and power brokers. Jill Stein, on the other hand, did nothing but sacrifice in service of what she saw as her civic duty and responsibility, same as Bernie. The difference between Stein and Bernie, however, is that Stein knew from the off that, not only would she lose the election by a huge margin, but that she would be ignored by all but a few.
I voted for Bernie in the primary and Stein in the general. I have had some personal confusion over my primary vote, but none over my vote in the general. Inasmuch as we are stuck with a two-party system that has become a one-party system, anything that even MIGHT push the un-Democratic Party to the left is, IMO, noble.
On the bright side, the people responsible for imposing a Trump administration on the nation also spared us from a Hillary administration, which would have been worse than a Bubba administration--and the Bubba administration brought us and several other nations the economic collapse of 2008, DADT, DOMA, "extraordinary rendition," etc., while ending "welfare as we know it."
“I would say they’re more responsible for why we have Trump than Jill Stein”- referring to DKos.
for the election of DT. Especially, if there's any truth to the claim that FSC's campaign urged/pushed the MSM to cover him, because they thought he would be the weakest Repub candidate.
Also, in light on the soft coup that we've witnessed since 2016, not at all surprised that Gabbard-- whose foreign policy, in some areas, somewhat aligns with that of DT--is being ostracized by the MSM and/or shills for Establishment Dems, like Markos.
Remember, she was considered/interviewed for a Trump Admin cabinet post. See below.
Democratic Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, a high-profile Bernie Sanders supporter during the Democratic primaries, is “under serious consideration” for various Cabinet positions in President-elect Donald Trump's administration, according to a senior official on the transition team.
According to the official, the 35-year-old Hawaii congresswoman is being looked as a candidate for secretary of state, secretary of defense or United Nations ambassador. If selected, Gabbard will be the first woman as well as the youngest pick for Trump's Cabinet.
She met with him this morning in his New York City offices at Trump Tower. The Trump transition source said that their sit-down was a “terrific meeting” and that the Trump team sees her as very impressive.
Gabbard, a progressive Democrat, has bucked her party in Congress and during the contentious Democratic primaries. In February she left her position as vice chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee to support Sanders. In the House she has broken with Democrats on the Syrian civil war (she supports keeping President Bashar al-Assad in power) and Syrian refugees (she voted for a GOP bill last year to conduct stricter background checks on refugees).
I could be wrong, but, I earnestly believe that after the bipartisan neoliberal/corporatist PtB and MSM lost control of the last Presidential election, they will pull out every stop to prevent another candidate advancing to the White House who doesn't agree lock, stock and barrel with the foreign policy prescriptions of the Deep State. Of course, that's just my 'guess.'
Blue Onyx
“If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went.” ~~Will Rogers, Actor & Social Commentator
“I think dogs are the most amazing creatures; they give unconditional love. For me they are the role model for being alive.” ~~Gilda Radner, Comedienne
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." ~~Daniel Patrick Moynihan
Al From and the Clintons, who created and spread the Democratic Leadership Council, Hillary's campaign team, the then head of the Party (Obama), the DNC, and all the "blue no matter who" folk who have obliterated every standard but a "(D)" after a politician's name, whether or not they post on political message boards, like Daily Kos, Democratic Underground or reddit.
Those people will make the majority of Americans pay any price to advance the selfish interests of the Democratic Party and of its politicians, pundits and power brokers. Jill Stein, on the other hand, did nothing but sacrifice in service of what she saw as her civic duty and responsibility, same as Bernie. The difference between Stein and Bernie, however, is that Stein knew from the off that, not only would she lose the election by a huge margin, but that she would be ignored by all but a few.
I voted for Bernie in the primary and Stein in the general. I have had some personal confusion over my primary vote, but none over my vote in the general. Inasmuch as we are stuck with a two-party system that has become a one-party system, anything that even MIGHT push the un-Democratic Party to the left is, IMO, noble.
On the bright side, the people responsible for imposing a Trump administration on the nation also spared us from a Hillary administration, which would have been worse than a Bubba administration--and the Bubba administration brought us and several other nations the economic collapse of 2008, DADT, DOMA, "extraordinary rendition," etc., while ending "welfare as we know it."
up
0 users have voted.
—
Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.
Totally agree with you two that Dems are largely responsible
@HenryAWallace
for the election of DT. Especially, if there's any truth to the claim that FSC's campaign urged/pushed the MSM to cover him, because they thought he would be the weakest Repub candidate.
I'm not sure to whom "FSC" refers. However, there was talk that the Hillary campaign used the Pied Piper strategy. As to that, I posted similarly on another board, meaning that I posted as though the campaign MAY have done that.
I got a reply saying the Pied Piper strategy had definitely occurred because wikileaks had published something from Podesta or the DNC about it. I had not heard that before, nor did I look it up. So, I just transmit to you, FWIW, what someone claimed to me. {ETA: Courtesy of zoebear's reply to this post: https://www.counterpunch.org/2016/10/11/elevating-trump/ }
From my own knowledge, however, I can attest that, without question, Morning Joe, which I watched daily during primary season, acted like Trump was a phenom, a cross between the Second Coming and a rock star, right up until he clinched the Republican primary. And I posted about that here a couple of years ago.
They let Trump call into the show, talk on the air via phone or in person as long as he wanted, say whatever he wanted unchallenged, gushed over him, etc. As soon as he clinched the primary, however, they trashed him soundly every single day, and for a good portion of the program. And, if anyone spreads the message that the DNC wants spread, it's MSNBC.
Remember, she was considered/interviewed for a Trump Admin cabinet post.
Interviewed, yes. Considered? Maybe. And maybe it only seemed that way. Remember, Trump plays games. And, specifically, he played games with who he was and was not actually considering for various posts.
Remember Mitt Romney going at Trump--until Trump met with Romney about being Secretary of State, with a lot of fanfare? Trump neutralized Romney and made him look like a jerk, just by dangling SOS in front of him. Is it possible that Trump was really considering Gabbard? Sure. But it's also possible that Trump only wanted it to look as though he were considering Gabbard, because he thought that served some purpose for him. Bottom line: I would not draw a conclusion either way. (BTW, I don't think Trump is alone in this. I think other Presidents elect also put names out there for various reasons that have nothing to do with their actual intentions.)
(she supports keeping President Bashar al-Assad in power)
This framing by your source (abc news) is bullshit of the rankest kind. International law says that one sovereign nation must not interfere in the internal affairs of another sovereign nation. Who governs Syria is Syria's business, not the business of the US. AFAIK, Gabbard does not support Bashar al Assad or keeping him in power. She just does not support the US's assassinating anyone or violating international law. (We came; we saw; he died, ha ha ha.--Hillary Clinton on Gaddafi.)
Much as I barely know what to believe anymore, I think al Assad is most likely a turd. However, I don't support the US's assassinating anyone or violating international law. That doesn't mean I support keeping Assad as President/dictator of Syria. I would love to see him replaced with someone better. Who wouldn't? (Trump, too, for that matter.)
Remember Hillary saying to an interviewer that members of Congress who met with Assad saw him as a reformer? Now, that was more supportive of Assad personally than anything I've heard before ir since from anyone, including Hillary.
As an aside: Funny how our "meddling" in the internal affairs of other nations, assassinating, faking demonstrations, etc., to effect regime change, all in violation of international law, is made to seem normal, even noble. Meanwhile, we carry on about a handful of ads on facebook supposedly bought by "Russia" as "hacking our democracy," whatever the hell that means. (Did the Russian government really pay Zuckerberg for ads? Or do we just assume that anything done by any Russian is done on behalf of the Russian government?)
for the election of DT. Especially, if there's any truth to the claim that FSC's campaign urged/pushed the MSM to cover him, because they thought he would be the weakest Repub candidate.
Also, in light on the soft coup that we've witnessed since 2016, not at all surprised that Gabbard-- whose foreign policy, in some areas, somewhat aligns with that of DT--is being ostracized by the MSM and/or shills for Establishment Dems, like Markos.
Remember, she was considered/interviewed for a Trump Admin cabinet post. See below.
Democratic Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, a high-profile Bernie Sanders supporter during the Democratic primaries, is “under serious consideration” for various Cabinet positions in President-elect Donald Trump's administration, according to a senior official on the transition team.
According to the official, the 35-year-old Hawaii congresswoman is being looked as a candidate for secretary of state, secretary of defense or United Nations ambassador. If selected, Gabbard will be the first woman as well as the youngest pick for Trump's Cabinet.
She met with him this morning in his New York City offices at Trump Tower. The Trump transition source said that their sit-down was a “terrific meeting” and that the Trump team sees her as very impressive.
Gabbard, a progressive Democrat, has bucked her party in Congress and during the contentious Democratic primaries. In February she left her position as vice chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee to support Sanders. In the House she has broken with Democrats on the Syrian civil war (she supports keeping President Bashar al-Assad in power) and Syrian refugees (she voted for a GOP bill last year to conduct stricter background checks on refugees).
I could be wrong, but, I earnestly believe that after the bipartisan neoliberal/corporatist PtB and MSM lost control of the last Presidential election, they will pull out every stop to prevent another candidate advancing to the White House who doesn't agree lock, stock and barrel with the foreign policy prescriptions of the Deep State. Of course, that's just my 'guess.'
Blue Onyx
“If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went.” ~~Will Rogers, Actor & Social Commentator
“I think dogs are the most amazing creatures; they give unconditional love. For me they are the role model for being alive.” ~~Gilda Radner, Comedienne
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." ~~Daniel Patrick Moynihan
I wrote about HRC and the DNC "Elevating" Trump's campaign in October 2016 in this essay:
I am outraged that the Clinton Campaign and the DNC colluded with the media in an effort to "elevate" Trump's campaign by instructing the media in a strategy memo to take his campaign seriously ensuring he would be the "Pied Piper" candidate in the GOP primary. Consequently, Trump was given $2 Billion worth of free advertising, and now that he is the nominee, we are being blackmailed into voting for HER. I'm not sure which is worse, the gobsmacking venality on the Clinton's part in hatching Trump's grotesque candidacy with the media, or the gun the Clinton's are holding to our head now that the monster is loose.
Totally agree with you two that Dems are largely responsible
@HenryAWallace
for the election of DT. Especially, if there's any truth to the claim that FSC's campaign urged/pushed the MSM to cover him, because they thought he would be the weakest Repub candidate.
I'm not sure to whom "FSC" refers. However, there was talk that the Hillary campaign used the Pied Piper strategy. As to that, I posted similarly on another board, meaning that I posted as though the campaign MAY have done that.
I got a reply saying the Pied Piper strategy had definitely occurred because wikileaks had published something from Podesta or the DNC about it. I had not heard that before, nor did I look it up. So, I just transmit to you, FWIW, what someone claimed to me. {ETA: Courtesy of zoebear's reply to this post: https://www.counterpunch.org/2016/10/11/elevating-trump/ }
From my own knowledge, however, I can attest that, without question, Morning Joe, which I watched daily during primary season, acted like Trump was a phenom, a cross between the Second Coming and a rock star, right up until he clinched the Republican primary. And I posted about that here a couple of years ago.
They let Trump call into the show, talk on the air via phone or in person as long as he wanted, say whatever he wanted unchallenged, gushed over him, etc. As soon as he clinched the primary, however, they trashed him soundly every single day, and for a good portion of the program. And, if anyone spreads the message that the DNC wants spread, it's MSNBC.
Remember, she was considered/interviewed for a Trump Admin cabinet post.
Interviewed, yes. Considered? Maybe. And maybe it only seemed that way. Remember, Trump plays games. And, specifically, he played games with who he was and was not actually considering for various posts.
Remember Mitt Romney going at Trump--until Trump met with Romney about being Secretary of State, with a lot of fanfare? Trump neutralized Romney and made him look like a jerk, just by dangling SOS in front of him. Is it possible that Trump was really considering Gabbard? Sure. But it's also possible that Trump only wanted it to look as though he were considering Gabbard, because he thought that served some purpose for him. Bottom line: I would not draw a conclusion either way. (BTW, I don't think Trump is alone in this. I think other Presidents elect also put names out there for various reasons that have nothing to do with their actual intentions.)
(she supports keeping President Bashar al-Assad in power)
This framing by your source (abc news) is bullshit of the rankest kind. International law says that one sovereign nation must not interfere in the internal affairs of another sovereign nation. Who governs Syria is Syria's business, not the business of the US. AFAIK, Gabbard does not support Bashar al Assad or keeping him in power. She just does not support the US's assassinating anyone or violating international law. (We came; we saw; he died, ha ha ha.--Hillary Clinton on Gaddafi.)
Much as I barely know what to believe anymore, I think al Assad is most likely a turd. However, I don't support the US's assassinating anyone or violating international law. That doesn't mean I support keeping Assad as President/dictator of Syria. I would love to see him replaced with someone better. Who wouldn't? (Trump, too, for that matter.)
Remember Hillary saying to an interviewer that members of Congress who met with Assad saw him as a reformer? Now, that was more supportive of Assad personally than anything I've heard before ir since from anyone, including Hillary.
As an aside: Funny how our "meddling" in the internal affairs of other nations, assassinating, faking demonstrations, etc., to effect regime change, all in violation of international law, is made to seem normal, even noble. Meanwhile, we carry on about a handful of ads on facebook supposedly bought by "Russia" as "hacking our democracy," whatever the hell that means. (Did the Russian government really pay Zuckerberg for ads? Or do we just assume that anything done by any Russian is done on behalf of the Russian government?)
up
0 users have voted.
—
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
Both in light of the Pied Piper strategy and in general, how Hillary has the nerve to blame anyone but herself and her campaign for her loss to Trump is beyond me. Even Axelrod and Biden chimed in to say that a candidate's loss is the fault of no one but the candidate. Of course, they may have been protecting Obama-Biden when they did that, but they are correct.
Just when you thought Hillary could not possibly make herself look worse than she already had, she writes What Happened and does a book tour claiming she is taking personal responsibility for her loss, but it was everyone else's fault.
Typical Clinton, trying to have it every which way but the actual way.
I wrote about HRC and the DNC "Elevating" Trump's campaign in October 2016 in this essay:
I am outraged that the Clinton Campaign and the DNC colluded with the media in an effort to "elevate" Trump's campaign by instructing the media in a strategy memo to take his campaign seriously ensuring he would be the "Pied Piper" candidate in the GOP primary. Consequently, Trump was given $2 Billion worth of free advertising, and now that he is the nominee, we are being blackmailed into voting for HER. I'm not sure which is worse, the gobsmacking venality on the Clinton's part in hatching Trump's grotesque candidacy with the media, or the gun the Clinton's are holding to our head now that the monster is loose.
that's my acronym for H Clinton (stands for Former Secretary Clinton).
Regarding DT's 'intent'--I absolutely don't claim to know his true intentions/interest in her. However, some of his foreign policy views have been in sync with Gabbard's. Remember, most of the bipartisan Establishment so-called "foreign policy experts" did not agree with DT's non-interventionist stances (which he ran on), and, for the most part, many of those people weren't available for his consideration. So, I figure that could be one reason that he looked at her. Personally, I wouldn't think his motivation was payback, like it may have been in Romney's case. To refresh folks' memories, I'm furnishing a link to the unprecedented and malicious takedown of DT, by Romney--delivered in a heavily televised speech in March 2016.
To my knowledge--and I suppose I could have missed it--DT and Gabbard have/had no such history of hateful personal interactions, much less public displays of contempt or disdain on the part of either of them toward the other. Which is why I didn't necessarily conclude that DT's Admin was trying to punk her. Since there's no way that I can know for certain, I'll leave that up to you and others to decide for yourselves.
Hey, regarding ABC's framing--two topics I know little or nothing about are climate change and foreign policy. So, will totally accept your rebuttal to their piece.
Actually, the primary point that I was trying to make was that I believe that the MSM and the Deep State have no intention of repeating the mistake of giving a candidate--who doesn't carry water for them and their neoliberal/neocon agenda--a lot of free airtime in the 2020 election cycle. (Including Tulsi Gabbard. Which, I thought, was the premise of the essay.)
Blue Onyx
“If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went.” ~~Will Rogers, Actor & Social Commentator
“I think dogs are the most amazing creatures; they give unconditional love. For me they are the role model for being alive.” ~~Gilda Radner, Comedienne
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." ~~Daniel Patrick Moynihan
Totally agree with you two that Dems are largely responsible
@HenryAWallace
for the election of DT. Especially, if there's any truth to the claim that FSC's campaign urged/pushed the MSM to cover him, because they thought he would be the weakest Repub candidate.
I'm not sure to whom "FSC" refers. However, there was talk that the Hillary campaign used the Pied Piper strategy. As to that, I posted similarly on another board, meaning that I posted as though the campaign MAY have done that.
I got a reply saying the Pied Piper strategy had definitely occurred because wikileaks had published something from Podesta or the DNC about it. I had not heard that before, nor did I look it up. So, I just transmit to you, FWIW, what someone claimed to me. {ETA: Courtesy of zoebear's reply to this post: https://www.counterpunch.org/2016/10/11/elevating-trump/ }
From my own knowledge, however, I can attest that, without question, Morning Joe, which I watched daily during primary season, acted like Trump was a phenom, a cross between the Second Coming and a rock star, right up until he clinched the Republican primary. And I posted about that here a couple of years ago.
They let Trump call into the show, talk on the air via phone or in person as long as he wanted, say whatever he wanted unchallenged, gushed over him, etc. As soon as he clinched the primary, however, they trashed him soundly every single day, and for a good portion of the program. And, if anyone spreads the message that the DNC wants spread, it's MSNBC.
Remember, she was considered/interviewed for a Trump Admin cabinet post.
Interviewed, yes. Considered? Maybe. And maybe it only seemed that way. Remember, Trump plays games. And, specifically, he played games with who he was and was not actually considering for various posts.
Remember Mitt Romney going at Trump--until Trump met with Romney about being Secretary of State, with a lot of fanfare? Trump neutralized Romney and made him look like a jerk, just by dangling SOS in front of him. Is it possible that Trump was really considering Gabbard? Sure. But it's also possible that Trump only wanted it to look as though he were considering Gabbard, because he thought that served some purpose for him. Bottom line: I would not draw a conclusion either way. (BTW, I don't think Trump is alone in this. I think other Presidents elect also put names out there for various reasons that have nothing to do with their actual intentions.)
(she supports keeping President Bashar al-Assad in power)
This framing by your source (abc news) is bullshit of the rankest kind. International law says that one sovereign nation must not interfere in the internal affairs of another sovereign nation. Who governs Syria is Syria's business, not the business of the US. AFAIK, Gabbard does not support Bashar al Assad or keeping him in power. She just does not support the US's assassinating anyone or violating international law. (We came; we saw; he died, ha ha ha.--Hillary Clinton on Gaddafi.)
Much as I barely know what to believe anymore, I think al Assad is most likely a turd. However, I don't support the US's assassinating anyone or violating international law. That doesn't mean I support keeping Assad as President/dictator of Syria. I would love to see him replaced with someone better. Who wouldn't? (Trump, too, for that matter.)
Remember Hillary saying to an interviewer that members of Congress who met with Assad saw him as a reformer? Now, that was more supportive of Assad personally than anything I've heard before ir since from anyone, including Hillary.
As an aside: Funny how our "meddling" in the internal affairs of other nations, assassinating, faking demonstrations, etc., to effect regime change, all in violation of international law, is made to seem normal, even noble. Meanwhile, we carry on about a handful of ads on facebook supposedly bought by "Russia" as "hacking our democracy," whatever the hell that means. (Did the Russian government really pay Zuckerberg for ads? Or do we just assume that anything done by any Russian is done on behalf of the Russian government?)
up
0 users have voted.
—
Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.
Trump had some reason to get back at Gabbard or to neutralize Gabbard, as he did with Romney. Rather, it is that Trump in general plays games and strategizes, including as to who is allegedly considering for an office--as do other Presidents Elect, IMO. There are any number of possible reasons to feint at Gabbard that have nothing to do with revenge. So, I would not either dismiss that Trump was actually considering Tulsi nor would I assume that he was not actually considering Tulsi. I would not draw a conclusion either way.
BTW, I don't think Trump named Romney as a potential SoS for revenge. He did it to neutralize Romney's criticism of TRump by proving how quickly and eagerly Romney would join a Trump administration. It was a defensive measure. That's different from revenge, although I believe Trump is vengeful.
As far as agreement with his alleged foreign policy, though, Rand Paul might be a more likely choice for Trump than Gabbard.
Hey, regarding ABC's framing--two topics I know little or nothing about are climate change and foreign policy. So, will totally accept your rebuttal to their piece.
I did not rebut the ABC piece because it was not a lie. I did point out that the few words I quoted in my prior were a misleading way to frame Gabbard's position on Assad.
(To me, the above distinctions are significant, but maybe that's just me.)
that's my acronym for H Clinton (stands for Former Secretary Clinton).
Regarding DT's 'intent'--I absolutely don't claim to know his true intentions/interest in her. However, some of his foreign policy views have been in sync with Gabbard's. Remember, most of the bipartisan Establishment so-called "foreign policy experts" did not agree with DT's non-interventionist stances (which he ran on), and, for the most part, many of those people weren't available for his consideration. So, I figure that could be one reason that he looked at her. Personally, I wouldn't think his motivation was payback, like it may have been in Romney's case. To refresh folks' memories, I'm furnishing a link to the unprecedented and malicious takedown of DT, by Romney--delivered in a heavily televised speech in March 2016.
To my knowledge--and I suppose I could have missed it--DT and Gabbard have/had no such history of hateful personal interactions, much less public displays of contempt or disdain on the part of either of them toward the other. Which is why I didn't necessarily conclude that DT's Admin was trying to punk her. Since there's no way that I can know for certain, I'll leave that up to you and others to decide for yourselves.
Hey, regarding ABC's framing--two topics I know little or nothing about are climate change and foreign policy. So, will totally accept your rebuttal to their piece.
Actually, the primary point that I was trying to make was that I believe that the MSM and the Deep State have no intention of repeating the mistake of giving a candidate--who doesn't carry water for them and their neoliberal/neocon agenda--a lot of free airtime in the 2020 election cycle. (Including Tulsi Gabbard. Which, I thought, was the premise of the essay.)
Blue Onyx
“If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went.” ~~Will Rogers, Actor & Social Commentator
“I think dogs are the most amazing creatures; they give unconditional love. For me they are the role model for being alive.” ~~Gilda Radner, Comedienne
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." ~~Daniel Patrick Moynihan
“If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went.” ~~Will Rogers, Actor & Social Commentator
“I think dogs are the most amazing creatures; they give unconditional love. For me they are the role model for being alive.” ~~Gilda Radner, Comedienne
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." ~~Daniel Patrick Moynihan
Trump had some reason to get back at Gabbard or to neutralize Gabbard, as he did with Romney. Rather, it is that Trump in general plays games and strategizes, including as to who is allegedly considering for an office--as do other Presidents Elect, IMO. There are any number of possible reasons to feint at Gabbard that have nothing to do with revenge. So, I would not either dismiss that Trump was actually considering Tulsi nor would I assume that he was not actually considering Tulsi. I would not draw a conclusion either way.
BTW, I don't think Trump named Romney as a potential SoS for revenge. He did it to neutralize Romney's criticism of TRump by proving how quickly and eagerly Romney would join a Trump administration. It was a defensive measure. That's different from revenge, although I believe Trump is vengeful.
As far as agreement with his alleged foreign policy, though, Rand Paul might be a more likely choice for Trump than Gabbard.
Hey, regarding ABC's framing--two topics I know little or nothing about are climate change and foreign policy. So, will totally accept your rebuttal to their piece.
I did not rebut the ABC piece because it was not a lie. I did point out that the few words I quoted in my prior were a misleading way to frame Gabbard's position on Assad.
(To me, the above distinctions are significant, but maybe that's just me.)
up
0 users have voted.
—
Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.
Al From and the Clintons, who created and spread the Democratic Leadership Council, Hillary's campaign team, the then head of the Party (Obama), the DNC, and all the "blue no matter who" folk who have obliterated every standard but a "(D)" after a politician's name, whether or not they post on political message boards, like Daily Kos, Democratic Underground or reddit.
Those people will make the majority of Americans pay any price to advance the selfish interests of the Democratic Party and of its politicians, pundits and power brokers. Jill Stein, on the other hand, did nothing but sacrifice in service of what she saw as her civic duty and responsibility, same as Bernie. The difference between Stein and Bernie, however, is that Stein knew from the off that, not only would she lose the election by a huge margin, but that she would be ignored by all but a few.
I voted for Bernie in the primary and Stein in the general. I have had some personal confusion over my primary vote, but none over my vote in the general. Inasmuch as we are stuck with a two-party system that has become a one-party system, anything that even MIGHT push the un-Democratic Party to the left is, IMO, noble.
On the bright side, the people responsible for imposing a Trump administration on the nation also spared us from a Hillary administration, which would have been worse than a Bubba administration--and the Bubba administration brought us and several other nations the economic collapse of 2008, DADT, DOMA, "extraordinary rendition," etc., while ending "welfare as we know it."
ALOHA
non-violent direct action
stay human like
bom bom AOC take over the building
bom bom Tulsi same thing yours
bom bom Bernie jam some gears
bom bom Ilhan and again why not
There are no far left candidates. We have moderates with positions supported by the majority of Americans, i.e. Bernie & tulsi, and one opposition party that consists of corporate right-wingers some crazy and some not, trying to convince everyone they are centrists and represent America. They don't.
up
0 users have voted.
—
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
@dkmich
the fact that Elizabeth Warren switched parties in 1995 without (to my knowledge anyway) really changing her positions and is concidered some kind of far left “progressive” whatever these days says a ton about US politics and the framing of it in the media.
There are no far left candidates. We have moderates with positions supported by the majority of Americans, i.e. Bernie & tulsi, and one opposition party that consists of corporate right-wingers some crazy and some not, trying to convince everyone they are centrists and represent America. They don't.
up
0 users have voted.
—
Idolizing a politician is like believing the stripper really likes you.
Non-christian (Hindu), daughter of immigrants, at 38 a life of public service, Iraq veteran
Wiki
Gabbard was the youngest woman to be elected to a U.S. state legislature. She supports abortion rights, Medicare for All, opposed the Trans-Pacific Partnership, has called for a restoration of the Glass–Steagall Act, and publicly announced her support of same-sex marriage in 2012. She is critical of aspects of U.S. foreign policy regarding Iraq, Libya and Syria. She opposes removing Syrian President Bashar al-Assad from power by force.
Last statement, guess what? The US (Obama et al) has not and does not now or ever supported removing Assad by force. OMG she supports US policy? The shame.
Fractured Party and MSM can't deal with an actual qualified female candidate. So ignore her.
Biden 2020! Now there's a winner.
up
0 users have voted.
—
Prof: Nancy! I’m going to Greece!
Nancy: And swim the English Channel?
Prof: No. No. To ancient Greece where burning Sapho stood beside the wine dark sea. Wa de do da! Nancy, I’ve invented a time machine!
Comments
Ow
“I would say they’re more responsible for why we have Trump than Jill Stein”- referring to DKos.
The people responsible for Trump include
Al From and the Clintons, who created and spread the Democratic Leadership Council, Hillary's campaign team, the then head of the Party (Obama), the DNC, and all the "blue no matter who" folk who have obliterated every standard but a "(D)" after a politician's name, whether or not they post on political message boards, like Daily Kos, Democratic Underground or reddit.
Those people will make the majority of Americans pay any price to advance the selfish interests of the Democratic Party and of its politicians, pundits and power brokers. Jill Stein, on the other hand, did nothing but sacrifice in service of what she saw as her civic duty and responsibility, same as Bernie. The difference between Stein and Bernie, however, is that Stein knew from the off that, not only would she lose the election by a huge margin, but that she would be ignored by all but a few.
I voted for Bernie in the primary and Stein in the general. I have had some personal confusion over my primary vote, but none over my vote in the general. Inasmuch as we are stuck with a two-party system that has become a one-party system, anything that even MIGHT push the un-Democratic Party to the left is, IMO, noble.
On the bright side, the people responsible for imposing a Trump administration on the nation also spared us from a Hillary administration, which would have been worse than a Bubba administration--and the Bubba administration brought us and several other nations the economic collapse of 2008, DADT, DOMA, "extraordinary rendition," etc., while ending "welfare as we know it."
Totally agree with you two that Dems are largely responsible
for the election of DT. Especially, if there's any truth to the claim that FSC's campaign urged/pushed the MSM to cover him, because they thought he would be the weakest Repub candidate.
Also, in light on the soft coup that we've witnessed since 2016, not at all surprised that Gabbard-- whose foreign policy, in some areas, somewhat aligns with that of DT--is being ostracized by the MSM and/or shills for Establishment Dems, like Markos.
Remember, she was considered/interviewed for a Trump Admin cabinet post. See below.
I could be wrong, but, I earnestly believe that after the bipartisan neoliberal/corporatist PtB and MSM lost control of the last Presidential election, they will pull out every stop to prevent another candidate advancing to the White House who doesn't agree lock, stock and barrel with the foreign policy prescriptions of the Deep State. Of course, that's just my 'guess.'
Blue Onyx
“If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went.”
~~Will Rogers, Actor & Social Commentator
“I think dogs are the most amazing creatures; they give unconditional love. For me they are the role model for being alive.”
~~Gilda Radner, Comedienne
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."
~~Daniel Patrick Moynihan
Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.
I'd like to comment on some of the things in your post.
I'm not sure to whom "FSC" refers. However, there was talk that the Hillary campaign used the Pied Piper strategy. As to that, I posted similarly on another board, meaning that I posted as though the campaign MAY have done that.
I got a reply saying the Pied Piper strategy had definitely occurred because wikileaks had published something from Podesta or the DNC about it. I had not heard that before, nor did I look it up. So, I just transmit to you, FWIW, what someone claimed to me. {ETA: Courtesy of zoebear's reply to this post: https://www.counterpunch.org/2016/10/11/elevating-trump/ }
From my own knowledge, however, I can attest that, without question, Morning Joe, which I watched daily during primary season, acted like Trump was a phenom, a cross between the Second Coming and a rock star, right up until he clinched the Republican primary. And I posted about that here a couple of years ago.
They let Trump call into the show, talk on the air via phone or in person as long as he wanted, say whatever he wanted unchallenged, gushed over him, etc. As soon as he clinched the primary, however, they trashed him soundly every single day, and for a good portion of the program. And, if anyone spreads the message that the DNC wants spread, it's MSNBC.
Interviewed, yes. Considered? Maybe. And maybe it only seemed that way. Remember, Trump plays games. And, specifically, he played games with who he was and was not actually considering for various posts.
Remember Mitt Romney going at Trump--until Trump met with Romney about being Secretary of State, with a lot of fanfare? Trump neutralized Romney and made him look like a jerk, just by dangling SOS in front of him. Is it possible that Trump was really considering Gabbard? Sure. But it's also possible that Trump only wanted it to look as though he were considering Gabbard, because he thought that served some purpose for him. Bottom line: I would not draw a conclusion either way. (BTW, I don't think Trump is alone in this. I think other Presidents elect also put names out there for various reasons that have nothing to do with their actual intentions.)
This framing by your source (abc news) is bullshit of the rankest kind. International law says that one sovereign nation must not interfere in the internal affairs of another sovereign nation. Who governs Syria is Syria's business, not the business of the US. AFAIK, Gabbard does not support Bashar al Assad or keeping him in power. She just does not support the US's assassinating anyone or violating international law. (We came; we saw; he died, ha ha ha.--Hillary Clinton on Gaddafi.)
Much as I barely know what to believe anymore, I think al Assad is most likely a turd. However, I don't support the US's assassinating anyone or violating international law. That doesn't mean I support keeping Assad as President/dictator of Syria. I would love to see him replaced with someone better. Who wouldn't? (Trump, too, for that matter.)
Remember Hillary saying to an interviewer that members of Congress who met with Assad saw him as a reformer? Now, that was more supportive of Assad personally than anything I've heard before ir since from anyone, including Hillary.
As an aside: Funny how our "meddling" in the internal affairs of other nations, assassinating, faking demonstrations, etc., to effect regime change, all in violation of international law, is made to seem normal, even noble. Meanwhile, we carry on about a handful of ads on facebook supposedly bought by "Russia" as "hacking our democracy," whatever the hell that means. (Did the Russian government really pay Zuckerberg for ads? Or do we just assume that anything done by any Russian is done on behalf of the Russian government?)
Pied Piper Strategy
I wrote about HRC and the DNC "Elevating" Trump's campaign in October 2016 in this essay:
WikiLeaks link: https://www.wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/fileid/1120/251
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
Thank you so much, zoebear. I edited my post to reference
your reply and the counterpunch article.
Both in light of the Pied Piper strategy and in general, how Hillary has the nerve to blame anyone but herself and her campaign for her loss to Trump is beyond me. Even Axelrod and Biden chimed in to say that a candidate's loss is the fault of no one but the candidate. Of course, they may have been protecting Obama-Biden when they did that, but they are correct.
Just when you thought Hillary could not possibly make herself look worse than she already had, she writes What Happened and does a book tour claiming she is taking personal responsibility for her loss, but it was everyone else's fault.
Typical Clinton, trying to have it every which way but the actual way.
Thanks for the reply, HAW. Regarding FSC,
that's my acronym for H Clinton (stands for Former Secretary Clinton).
Regarding DT's 'intent'--I absolutely don't claim to know his true intentions/interest in her. However, some of his foreign policy views have been in sync with Gabbard's. Remember, most of the bipartisan Establishment so-called "foreign policy experts" did not agree with DT's non-interventionist stances (which he ran on), and, for the most part, many of those people weren't available for his consideration. So, I figure that could be one reason that he looked at her. Personally, I wouldn't think his motivation was payback, like it may have been in Romney's case. To refresh folks' memories, I'm furnishing a link to the unprecedented and malicious takedown of DT, by Romney--delivered in a heavily televised speech in March 2016.
To my knowledge--and I suppose I could have missed it--DT and Gabbard have/had no such history of hateful personal interactions, much less public displays of contempt or disdain on the part of either of them toward the other. Which is why I didn't necessarily conclude that DT's Admin was trying to punk her. Since there's no way that I can know for certain, I'll leave that up to you and others to decide for yourselves.
Hey, regarding ABC's framing--two topics I know little or nothing about are climate change and foreign policy. So, will totally accept your rebuttal to their piece.
Actually, the primary point that I was trying to make was that I believe that the MSM and the Deep State have no intention of repeating the mistake of giving a candidate--who doesn't carry water for them and their neoliberal/neocon agenda--a lot of free airtime in the 2020 election cycle. (Including Tulsi Gabbard. Which, I thought, was the premise of the essay.)
Blue Onyx
“If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went.”
~~Will Rogers, Actor & Social Commentator
“I think dogs are the most amazing creatures; they give unconditional love. For me they are the role model for being alive.”
~~Gilda Radner, Comedienne
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."
~~Daniel Patrick Moynihan
Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.
My point about Romney was not that
Trump had some reason to get back at Gabbard or to neutralize Gabbard, as he did with Romney. Rather, it is that Trump in general plays games and strategizes, including as to who is allegedly considering for an office--as do other Presidents Elect, IMO. There are any number of possible reasons to feint at Gabbard that have nothing to do with revenge. So, I would not either dismiss that Trump was actually considering Tulsi nor would I assume that he was not actually considering Tulsi. I would not draw a conclusion either way.
BTW, I don't think Trump named Romney as a potential SoS for revenge. He did it to neutralize Romney's criticism of TRump by proving how quickly and eagerly Romney would join a Trump administration. It was a defensive measure. That's different from revenge, although I believe Trump is vengeful.
As far as agreement with his alleged foreign policy, though, Rand Paul might be a more likely choice for Trump than Gabbard.
I did not rebut the ABC piece because it was not a lie. I did point out that the few words I quoted in my prior were a misleading way to frame Gabbard's position on Assad.
(To me, the above distinctions are significant, but maybe that's just me.)
Hey, thanks for the clarification. EOM
Blue Onyx
“If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went.”
~~Will Rogers, Actor & Social Commentator
“I think dogs are the most amazing creatures; they give unconditional love. For me they are the role model for being alive.”
~~Gilda Radner, Comedienne
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."
~~Daniel Patrick Moynihan
Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.
You're right Henry,
that it was the D machine that was responsible. I guess they were blinded by their vision.
And how about her? (just adding, do not want to hijack thread)
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxjNOp-c2VQ]
Proof Ilhan Omar Controversy Is Phony Outrage
Ilhan Omar might have to wear a hard hat underneath her hijab. I pray for both women's safety.
I appreciated Glenn Greenwald's defense of Ilhan Omar
My browsers are acting up all the time. Sigh. Need another nap.
https://www.euronews.com/live
Thanks,
, for this concise and spirited response to the Omar controversy. It's helped me to keep my composure and sense of humor in tact.
This is what it looks like
When TPTB are really afraid of someone.
Idolizing a politician is like believing the stripper really likes you.
The PTB are so powerful, yet they must silence every voice and
keystroke that deviates from their sham world, even facebook and twitter posts and google searches, while spying on us, from our DNA to our emails.
So much for the Bill of Rights.
Gabbard- "They are afraid."
Time to rock
Rock the Nation - Michael Franti (Stay human)
ALOHA
non-violent direct action
stay human like
bom bom AOC take over the building
bom bom Tulsi same thing yours
bom bom Bernie jam some gears
bom bom Ilhan and again why not
keep going
f-bomb the corporate msm
peace
They need to quit using right wing language.
There are no far left candidates. We have moderates with positions supported by the majority of Americans, i.e. Bernie & tulsi, and one opposition party that consists of corporate right-wingers some crazy and some not, trying to convince everyone they are centrists and represent America. They don't.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
Definitely not a coincidence.
the fact that Elizabeth Warren switched parties in 1995 without (to my knowledge anyway) really changing her positions and is concidered some kind of far left “progressive” whatever these days says a ton about US politics and the framing of it in the media.
Idolizing a politician is like believing the stripper really likes you.
Hmmm
Non-christian (Hindu), daughter of immigrants, at 38 a life of public service, Iraq veteran
Wiki
Last statement, guess what? The US (Obama et al) has not and does not now or ever supported removing Assad by force. OMG she supports US policy? The shame.
Fractured Party and MSM can't deal with an actual qualified female candidate. So ignore her.
Biden 2020! Now there's a winner.
Prof: Nancy! I’m going to Greece!
Nancy: And swim the English Channel?
Prof: No. No. To ancient Greece where burning Sapho stood beside the wine dark sea. Wa de do da! Nancy, I’ve invented a time machine!
Firesign Theater
Stop the War!