Tulsi Gabbard supporters: the new deplorables
You! Yes, you. You are a deplorable!
The Democratic Party establishment won't use that exact word, but if you support Tulsi Gabbard then there is something wrong with you.
U.S. Representative and presidential hopeful Tulsi Gabbard’s most successful internet fundraiser, political vlogger Niko House, has clapped back at the Huffington Post over a story labeling him “a conspiracy theorist” who believes the Las Vegas mass shooting was a set-up, that Bill Cosby was “framed,” and that “Pizzagate” was a thing.
Once a progressive firebrand, Gabbard has seen her star dim in recent years. Her unlikely support of using the phrase “radical Islam,” hawkish outlook on terrorism, and off-putting relationship with Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad alienated early supporters—and that hasn’t been doing her any favors on the campaign trail. Of the 22 Democrats currently running for president, Gabbard is one of 11 with approximately 1 percent voter support, according to the Morning Consult.
But she’s also attracted a motley and fervent group of enthusiasts. (In an unfortunate turn of events, she had to reject the endorsement of former KKK grand wizard David Duke.) As the Huffington Post put it, “Gabbard, while struggling to register in most polls, has attracted a good deal of support from the fringe of both the left and right, especially online…The campaign has…embraced some of its lesser-hinged fans.” House among them, point being.
Having reviewed the dizzying array of videos linked in the article, it might be more fair to call House a “conflate-ist” than a conspiracy theorist. While he makes a reasonable, albeit rambling, case that Hillary Clinton and the DNC stole North Carolina from Bernie Sanders in 2016, he makes other cases as well. For instance, he doesn’t quite say that the Vegas murders were a Weinstein cover-up. Instead, he seems frustrated that many different things seem to happen all at once.
Well, that settles it for me.
After all, we can be absolutely certain that no one has ever endorsed an establishment candidate that didn't have a spotless record.
Do you know why I know that? Because the media only does reports like this for non-establishment candidates. Anyone who supports an anti-war candidate clearly is either crazy or a traitor.
Gabbard is one of her party’s more Russia-friendly voices in an era of deep Democratic suspicion of the country over its efforts to tip the 2016 election in favor of President Donald Trump. Her financial support from prominent pro-Russian voices in the U.S. is a small portion of the total she’s raised. But it still illustrates the degree to which she deviates from her party’s mainstream on such a contentious and high-profile issue.
Data on Gabbard’s financial supporters only covers the first three months of the year. In that time, her campaign received just over $1,000 from Cohen, arguably the nation’s leading intellectual apologist for Russian president Vladimir Putin.
It's funny how people that don't endorse the status quo candidate always have something wrong with them. Isn't that curious?
You would think that occasionally some normal, every day people might endorse a fringe candidate, but nope. Unless you endorse the status quo then you are hopelessly flawed, and it's the duty of the Democratic Party establishment to denounce you and virtue signal.
Because that worked so well in 2016.