Tucker Carlson interviews Tulsi Gabbard--two important lessons
Notice: I am extremely biased in favor of Tulsi Gabbard. One of the two lessons I hope to impart concerns the essence of her foreign policy stances. The second lesson concerns the circumstances of Tucker interviewing Tulsi at all.
Lesson number One, Tulsi's candidacy so far
Major Gabbard, which is what she remains, is THE ONLY credible candidate, including the Orange Man, who can speak about war as a human being with values and feelings. This is authenticity which the other pretenders to the throne lack in entirety. Gabbard has been there--done that. Her mission was to patch up, comfort, and support her wounded fellows. Caring for the wounded is a task undertaken by physicians as a whole, usually as good Samaritans. I know when Tulsi speaks of war, she knows whereof she speaks. Her delivery is so straight, strong and forthright that one can easily feel the authenticity. After watching the video, only 6 minutes long, you don't believe that:
1. She is strong
2. She is not dissembling
3. She is passionate
4. Tulsi speaks in people-talk, not Washingtonese
5. She has the strength of character required to lead others.
Lesson number two: coalescence of Tucker and Tusli
I have regarded generally conservative but honest commentator Tucker Carlson as almost always reasonable. Yes, he does laugh at many guests, but the laughter is justified when provoked outright flummery. AOC makes me laugh--but I digress. I watch a lot of YouTube which my Aunt Alithea will rot what little brain I have. I watch all kinds of channels, growing fond of some and abandoning others. I tune into many Black channels (yay for me!). Jamarl Thomas is a cool, cerebral guy with whom I frequently agree as a progressive (whateverthehell that means today)
But I watch Jericho Green, who is an absolute howl. A good chunk of this board's members would probably be repulsed by his ideology--but so be it. He cracks me up. He's funny and he knows it.
Roundabout I am getting to the point of lesson number two. I watch as many conservative channels as I do non-conservative ones. This gets a very broad, although certainly incomplete, feeling for the general political and emotional tenor of this country. Now many here may scoff, though I hope you don't. Every single one of the channels I watch, whether "left" or "right" is anti-war.
Don't watch bubble-lite R. Madcow if you want to perceive anything other than a deluded cult member's view of the world as revealed to us by their holinesses Evil Queen and Bubba Bill. The real world--you know the real world waiting for you outside of your front door (providing you aren't incarcerated).
Most conservatives are not evangelical though many have evangelical leanings. Many Conservatives are quite aware of the Republican Party's miserable failings. Most Conservatives agree that Russiagate always was a hoax. Most Conservatives would likely agree that Trump is the intended victim of a coup against this government. This should cause resonance here, where many of us have voiced the same sentiments:
1. Russiagate was a hoax
2. The Republicans often fail miserably.
3. The Dems were and still are trying to overthrow Trump.
There is one prominent similarity between Tulsi and Tucker: they are authentic and unafraid to speak his/her mind. Tulsi has taken storms of abuse, since her resignation from the DNC, as well as other things. Tucker has been subject of doxxing, the public exposure of residence, family, phone numbers, etc. He is familiar with abuse coming from the real world. Even though some might disagree, Tucker speaks his mind. Thus his interview of Tulsi was a meeting of like-motived individuals. That is, both are interested in straight talk and honest opinions.
This interview is perhaps the current most obvious of melding of Conservative and Gabbard realism. Tulsi is no longer a Democrat in spirit. That ended when she quit the DNC. The current Democrat Party is an empty shell, about which I may write later.
Tulsi, Tucker and "clear bias""
Comments
Excellent interview
I was trying to figure it out, and this says it exactly. They seem to respect each other, and Tucker is helping a wider demographic become comfortable with Tulsi.
Tucker has always been an interesting character. I remember watching Crossfire during the Dubya days, back when Tucker co-hosted it in his youthful "bow-tie" years.
Yep. This is why I think that if anyone would have a chance of leading a successful third-party movement, it would be Tulsi. I don't mean just a third-party run for the presidency, but the creation of a viable third party that would render the death blow to the duopoly.
Whether she'll actually end up doing so, who knows? This thing (the "revolution") could play out in a number of ways.
She has said (I can't remember offhand which interview it was - maybe Jimmy Dore?) that the reason she's running as a Democrat is because that's how she thinks she can make the most difference right now. If circumstances change, I could well see her stepping off the Dem path onto an independent track. And I think she'd have a large, diverse group coalesce alongside her.
"Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep."
~Rumi
"If you want revolution, be it."
~Caitlin Johnstone
Tulsi is amazingly precise and persuasive in her words
... and that under a lot of pressure.
if even a Carl Tucker was seduced and melted down to agree with her, jeez what will be next?
PS I can't watch FOX News as easily as you can in the US. I never thought I would regret that, but I have to say, I like the selection of clips you post here. C99p is my first go to place to get what's happening in the US. And so far I haven't regretted that.
Have a good Friday, all.
https://www.euronews.com/live
What Tucker and Tulsi are saying
is exactly what I learned from the years (2012-2016) I spent with our local Peace vigil. I was not sure if it was just sentiments from western North Carolina where we held our Peace vigil or if it was more wide spread. What I learned was that the American people are sick of war. This sentiment cut across self identified political leanings. About the only people I met who were vociferously for these wars were older, conservative white males who seemed to equate wanting Peace with being anti-American.
What I like so much about Tulsi's message is the fact that she is linking the high fiscal costs of these wars to why people in this country are lacking basic needs that most other countries provide, such as inexpensive or free higher education and universal healthcare.
In our conversations with people during those Peace vigils, we avoided preaching the moral issues because that was less likely to be received in a positive manner or would make us appear to be judgmental. But we did try to link the costs to things that anyone could identify with and most people did get it once they heard the real numbers.
From the beginning, Tucker has given Tulsi a platform for her message and he has been about the only person on MSM to do so. I am very grateful to him for that because the rest of the MSM has either smeared her or blacked her out. When people hear her, they are very receptive to her message. I think there is a mutual respect between Tucker and Tulsi on this subject, regardless of how much they may disagree on many other things.
Edit to add: I am a firm believer in trying to find some common grounds with those whom we may not always agree with on other issues. If we can work together on the issues where we have commonality, it opens the door for us to work together on many other issues that benefit our citizens.
Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy
Not only on the local & national level
with our fellow US citizens, but also internationally. In fact, that's what Tulsi was talking about in that interview. "Engaging with the world" doesn't just mean blowing up other countries. Diplomacy = working with other countries to find our common ground, and taking actions that are mutually beneficial.
"Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep."
~Rumi
"If you want revolution, be it."
~Caitlin Johnstone
" the American people are sick of war"
this is why the establishment do not want Tulsi to be heard.
That she was willing to leave the DNC is a big point in her favor.
I do not see her rolling over for them Sanders - style.
So happy she got on the stage.
Bush Sr. is dead
and with his passing the deep state he ruled with the Saudis is starting to fall.
It is still dangerous but they haven't the powerful leader they once had.
And yet Tucker talks out of both sides of his mouth.
No doubt he'll go back to his business as usual anti-immigrant, anti-worker, pro-capitalist whining and bitching after this.
Modern education is little more than toeing the line for the capitalist pigs.
Guerrilla Liberalism won't liberate the US or the world from the iron fist of capital.
Well,
the world is not totally black and white and neither are people. For whatever reason, Tucker may have, I am grateful that he has allowed Tulsi to air her views to a wider audience. This does not mean that I like Tucker or think he has changed. I just acknowledge that he appears to be right on this issue.
Again, we need to find commonality on issues and work together on them to improve our lives and those of others. This may be the only issue that Tulsi and Tucker agree on, but I believe that it is beneficial to all of us that he has given her a few minutes to air her ideas.
Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy
Since when do rich jackoffs like Tucker have any genuine
interest in us? As I said to another poster, he's simply trying to look reasonable while himself being as balls-out fascist as the rest of America's propagandist hacks. Work together with them? No thanks. They prefer to kill us instead.
Modern education is little more than toeing the line for the capitalist pigs.
Guerrilla Liberalism won't liberate the US or the world from the iron fist of capital.
Word A.C.
https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2019/06/25/why-biden-is-wrong-abo...
"Empirical studies find that successful people tend to be bad: it’s natural for the scum and not the cream to rise to the top in organizations or in any society. The richer they are, the more hostile toward the poor they become. So, the wealthier a person is, the worse the person tends to be. The scientific studies show this. And it’s not just this, but success itself tends to make a person worse than the person was before the success. Even if a person became rich purely by luck, that lucky event itself makes the person more inclined to blame the poor, instead of to blame the rich, for society’s problems."
Tucker isn't anti-worker
at all. But you would not know that because you don't ever watch him.
dfarrah
And why should I watch the SOB?
Hell, why should I watch ANY 'Murican capitalist propaganda rags? Just because he shares one or two pro-worker sentiments on his rag doesn't mean a damn thing. The party he speaks for (The US Capitalist Party) is as anti-worker as it gets. He's simply trying to sound like a reasonable person even though he's as balls-out fascist as the rest of the spawn of William Randolph Hearst.
Modern education is little more than toeing the line for the capitalist pigs.
Guerrilla Liberalism won't liberate the US or the world from the iron fist of capital.
Pfffft.
You simply have no idea what you are talking about, but rant on.
dfarrah
dfarrah, that was rude.
Aspie absolutely does know what he is talking about. Truth.
You talk about what you have been told to talk about.
Over, and over...
Do you think anybody on this site admires Trump, or ever will?
Seriously?
Do you?
Do you think your comments are going to turn anyone toward Trump? On anything?
Any knowledge you have acquired by being on this exceptional site that gives you any reason, whatsoever, that anyone agrees with you about Trump Greatness, should be revealed.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
As most know and was already posted here,
Tulsi was the winner of the Drudge poll. This was immediately dismissed as Trump troll fuckery.
I haven't listened to tulsi at all and don't intend to. If she ever has a snowball's chance in hell of winning, I will. Until then, they are all hurting my ears.
Watched none of the first debate and maybe 5 minutes of the second. Bunch of damn birds jostling for position with mom to regurgitate food.
Tucker can be interesting. Wonder what his deal is.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
It depends on how you view this
Personally, I do not think Tulsi will be the nominee in 2020, but I am damn well supporting her because of her views on regime change wars. She is the only candidate, other than Mike Gravel, who is talking about this issue. And this issue is extremely important to me personally.
I spent nearly every Saturday from 2012 through mid 2016 with a Peace vigil. Did I think five of us originally, and ultimately three of us, could stop the wars? Hell no. But I did believe that the more we educated people with real facts, the more they might spread the word and eventually we might re-ignite a grass roots Peace movement. Our platform was a street corner in front of the local county courthouse in a busy small town downtown. Tulsi has a bigger platform and I want her message to start resonating with people all over the country.
Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy
Me personally, I'm sick of all of them.
Since the courts have ruled that the Democratic Party is a business and can cheat, lie, and steal at will, I really see no point. Yes, Tulsi can change the agenda as Bernie has just long enough for the theater to come and go. After the curtain comes down, none of it will matter.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
To each his own
Like I have posted before, I still believe in innate goodness of my fellow human beings. The system sucks and it has propagandized far too many people, but if we cannot engage with one another or use a national figure such as Tulsi or Bernie or Mike Gravel to bring us together, then we have nothing. We cannot do it alone because our individual platforms are not large enough, but also we cannot expect one person on the national stage to do it for us, BUT we need both.
The Gravel teens have it right and Mike Gravel understands it very well. He is the figure head that they are using to bring attention to their issues which are the same issues that he has long espoused. Mike has said he is perfectly willing to be used if it helps to bring these issues to fore.
If we just drop out of the conversation (and I am not talking about just voting), then how are we to effect change? We need a revolution, either literal or metaphorical. Revolution sparks from people becoming aware and enlightened. I am willing to use or support whatever means we have available to try to enlighten people. That is just me.
Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy
Agree completely with your statement
How can there be a peace movement if the beliefs of certain commentators on this blog refuse to acknowledge that people with disparate views are still pro-peace? There will never be total agreement on anything. If a person who is nominally Conservative is pro-peace, some here would tune them out just for the sake of purity. If there is a heaven, then purity may provide entrance, but there is no putrid here on earth. Comments here by some (not the person to whom this reply is addressed) are so imbued the The Purity Principle that they jettison any chance of building a coalition of people like-minded on the peace issue.
I have been banging my head against the wall
on this concept. And I am not singling out any one person here because I was somewhat in that same camp myself many years ago. My experience with both Occupy Tallahassee and the Peace vigil in Brevard, NC taught me a lot about finding common ground. And what is so frustrating is that I have mentioned this very concept and how it affected me in many comments here.
The bottom line is it is not just about giving up our ideals. It is about finding those whose ideas on a single (or maybe more) subject mesh with our own and forming that alliance to try to push for a better result on that subject. It does not mean we have to approve of their other ideas, just as they may not approve of ours. But on this subject, we can agree and if we ally, we are far more stronger together than marching alone.
With Occupy Tallahassee, I thought that everyone would be a liberal and there were plenty of us there, but there were also a significant number of libertarians and many of them were the most vocal.
We just never know who might be an ally that we never considered.
Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy
You have such grace, gg /nt
Once again, we find commonality
Too often the Purists here decide they must brook no input from their inferiors, i.e., Conservatives. If a Conservative is anti-war, I'm all for that too. If a Conservative back M4A, I'm all in for that, too. We have on this site so many Purists that believe if an idea is adopted by a non-progressive, then that idea is perhaps tainted. One should make allies wherever one can without sacrificing principles. Supporting peace is always a plus--but one might never know this by reading some commentators.
Wonder what his deal is ...
Me, too.
I watched this clip because I didn't watch the debate and I never watch FOX (or any other MSM channel), and I was interested to see the interplay between Tucker and Tulsi.
Hmmm.
I don't know Tucker's style. Is it customary for him to sit silently by while his guests have free reign to convey their message uninterrupted? If not, why now? If so ... what's the reason?
I wish I could abandon all cynicism on this, but I can't.
Wonder no more.
Just watch some of these guys and make your own decision.
dfarrah
There is a strong anti-war element
among conservatives. The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity, his son Rand Paul, Republican senator from Kentucky, and The American Conservative are strong voices for peace.
http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2019/june/06/...
https://www.paul.senate.gov/
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/
I would amend that
b/c being generally antiwar is not characteristic of all or most conservatives, who mostly tend to march along with the MIC orders. More accurately there is an anti-stupid/unnecessary/unilateral war sentiment among a smaller subset of conservatives, those with libertarian inclinations mostly, but also some who harken back to the isolationist Republican days of yore.
The Pauls definitely are in the libertarian R wing of the party. The anti-Iraq War Pat Buchanan seems more in the old isolationist mold. I see these types as in the minority of their party, which majority has been fronted by noisy, armchair warriors like the fearless Lindsay Graham and an endless multitude of chickenhawks like Dick Cheney and subsequent.
You beat me to the Libertarian punch. :-)
Both Gabbard and Carlson are imperialists,
just like Bernie Sanders. They may say they're against some of the imperialist tactics, like regime change wars, but they're still all for the imperialist rule the world agenda, as Gabbard has indicated with her voting record. When Gabbard says the word, let me know. I know it won't come from Carlson.
Eh..the LP may sound decent on the surface,
but when it comes to domestic issues, they're just as bad as the rest of the Capitalist Party. Hell, in some cases, even worse. I dabbled in the Ron Paul cult for a couple of years until I learned more about him and his pal, Lew Rockwell. Scum, both of them. And that probably goes for the rest of the Austrian School hacks as well.
They may be anti-military war, but for them, economics is a battlefield and life is nothing more than a series of transactions at the 'free' market. As for their cherished NAP (Non-aggression Principle), that shit only applies to members of the LP themselves. All else is subject to whatever malfeasance they wish to inflict in order to line their own pockets.
Me? I'm more Marxist-Leninist myself. People always painted me as a Communist anyway (Especially after I became Nichiren Buddhist) so after 2016 and since the working world has always considered me persona non grata thanks to my disabilities, I might as well.
Modern education is little more than toeing the line for the capitalist pigs.
Guerrilla Liberalism won't liberate the US or the world from the iron fist of capital.
Your experience with the MIC differs greatly
from our experience. (meaning what Mr M and I saw)
We found it to be the opposite--it was a 'subset' of military members who were (what we'd call) 'eaten up.'
IOW, Rambo, war-mongering types.
If you recall, print media published that it was Marine General Joseph Dunford, current Chairman Of The Joint Chiefs Of Staff, who recently sided with DT about avoiding engagement with Iran.
BTW, I agree that Graham is a ridiculous war hawk. But, 'noisy, armchair' warrior seems a bit unfair, since, even if a JAG officer, he wore the uniform for more than a couple of decades, and retired as a full bird - USAF Reserve.
Too pushed this evening, but, I"ll furnish a link and excerpt about Bernie's Medicare comments, as soon as I can get a chance to check out the transcript, next week.
There's a good reason that he didn't make a stronger case that his UMFA system--which would replace the current (1965) Original/Traditional Medicare FFS program, with a managed care system--would be cheaper for everyone.
It won't be.
We've already done the math. According to Bernie's own White Paper, we'll pay more if we're taxed, than we pay now for our premiums. And, that includes our Medigap and Part D premiums.
Now, that obviously can, and will, vary--depends upon one's household income. At any rate, Bernie never makes the claim that 'seniors' will pay less. Only 'families.' Because he knows better, I'd say.
Have a good one!
Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.
Yes indeed
Lindsay wore the uniform, but being a JAG officer put him in the courtroom at several removes from the action. Tulsi, for instance, wasn't in battle but did serve in the medical unit where she saw the horrible effects of war first-hand.
I call out Lindsay because, like his buddy the late J McCain, he always seems to be eager to send US troops into harm's way all over the world. His is the face of the conservatives in the GOP on issues of war and the type of US commitment. Their first impulse is to send in the troops.
Your comments conflates conservatism with war support
This is only partially true. Many conservatives are anti-war. This might surprise the hard core progressive purists here but it's true. Gulfgal repeatedly makes this point, upon which I support her fully. Many on this blog have their blinders on, with knee jerk reactions to anything bearing a whiff of "conservatism". The issues are important, much more so than ideological labels which often serve serve to a priori demonize views emanating from contrary sources.
Progressives (whatever the hell we are) will never obtain significant influence while harboring such closed-minded rejection of anything not originating, or even mutually supported, by non-progressives.
You can see "these types"
anyway you wish, but the fact is Trump ran against endless wars and costly foreign engagements.
Per polls, a large proportion of the US opposes endless wars and costly foreign engagements, so that 'most' would have to include plenty of conservatives.
And now, dems flipped to become the pro-war party only because they oppose Trump. And you want to accuse repubs of: "who mostly tend to march along with the MIC orders" when the dems have happily followed them, too.
It is an observable fact that when Trump does something that was once supported by dems, the dems flip to the other side.
But please continue with your typecasting.
dfarrah
We were discussing
conservatives, normally found in the GOP. I said nothing about Ds but I have in other posts, and not favorably. If there were a quick way of referencing these prior posts, I would do it, but I'm too lazy to do a search and create links.
The D establishment has indeed been a bit too cozy in recent years with the MIIC, and I'm not clear when this started but probably it began developing pre-Trump, somewhere in the 9-11 period and aftermath. Not wanting to look soft on terror or bad guys anywhere. Except our own bad guys of course and the ones we manage overseas.
For years I have lamented the rightward drift on FP by Dems, even libs, and noted the shockingly small number of people constituting what passes for an antiwar movement today -- a number that could probably fit easily inside my house for a dinner party.
Now re Donald, I'm fully aware of his campaign pronouncements, and how he cleverly positioned himself to the left of Hillary on FP generally. Smart move politically. But it turned out either that it was just to get elected, or the bully boy prez got bullied by the higher ups in the DeepState, who want themselves more war and gave their marching orders to Donald. He's certainly been ramping up tensions all over the world -- we are playing a dangerous game with Iran, we've threatened regime change in VZ, we are hearing more skeptical voices with some Euro allies re the US, and our relations with Russia and China have deteriorated.
But on the important stuff -- our relations with Israel and Saudi have never been stronger, so who cares about the rest?
And you have proof of your statement?
Tune into YouTube and visit conservative channels. There are few non_MSM outlets that are pro-war. Take a little swim around YouTube before making such an unproven statement. The Purity Police often babble such nonsense because peaceniks who are not in "our tribe" just can't mean what they are plainly saying.
I met a lot of self identified conservatives
during my time with the Peace vigil. I was pleasantly surprised at how many (actually most that I met) were sick of war. Part of it may be due that they hated seeing their tax dollars going down the drain. Conservatives were more likely to ask why are we not spending that money here in the US. This all went against my pre-conceived notions about conservatives whom I lumped into one big ball. My anecdotal experience of 4+ years led me to believe that is also why we must try to bridge those political gaps because on this issue, we may have more allies than we think.
Seriously, folks, if we really want change, we cannot ignore those whom we may think are adversaries. They may just be allies that we have not yet met.
And y'all can call me a pollyanna or whatever, but at least I am willing to reach out.
Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy
I work closely with Represent Us
I can tell you despite the mutual distrust we fight together, conservative and progressive, to clean up politics and end election rigging.
The whole deal for me is
while we may not agree on everything, or even most things, we should work together on the things we agree. It creates a bond among us as human beings.
Despite the fact our Peace vigil ended in 2016 due to age and illness of the remaining members, I left with a far more positive attitude towards my fellow human beings than I had when I came in.
Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy
Tucker does not suffer fools and is quite unafraid to call them
out. Allowing Tulsi to speak uninterruptedly is a tacit sign of approval, or at least respect. Perhaps some of those ostriches here should stick there necks out a bit and listen to what the "unbelievers" say. Too many Purity Partisans here. You, all of you, need to listen to what a sizable minority has to say. Smug sneering at the "rightists" gets a peace movement nowhere.
Then how does he live with himself?
Tucker is, generally speaking, an idiot -- an entitled, silver-spooned, moralizing, market-solutioning, blah blah blah etc etc who will probably never realize that almost every single thought he's ever had in his head was put there by somebody else by the time he was 15.
The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.
I also find myself watching Tucker Carlson online
because I agree with him often, especially about peace. I am heartened by his positive response to Gabbard.
And I love this good news!
And yet
According to "fair and independent" NPR, Warren was unequivocally the winner -- based on the snippet I heard in the car yesterday.
/eyeroll
[ETA: And how many people listen to NPR vs. read Drudge? (Rhetorical, I know).]
The Washington Examiner
initially pulled down their poll when it showed Tulsi winning but it had already been photo'd and passed on before they could bury it.
Once word started circling that they'd shut it down, I understand that they pit it back up.
Me thinks the only reason Tulsi is allowed to do this on Fox
Me thinks the only reason Tulsi is allowed to do this
w/Tucker on Faux News is the primaries are construed in
most states so the R's can't crossover and vote for a D's
otherwise many of those R's watching this might vote for
Tulsi.
Cuz this interview will never happen at MSNBC/CNN/CBS/ABC
yada, yada.
I never knew that the term "Never Again" only pertained to
those born Jewish
"Antisemite used to be someone who didn't like Jews
now it's someone who Jews don't like"
Heard from Margaret Kimberley
Not personally verfied, but
Niko House has stated that 35 states now have some form of an open primary. I vote in Florida which is a closed primary state. Frankly, it irks me to no end that all tax payers are paying for a primary that only benefits one party. Independents are completely shut out of the process which is why I have not officially Dem-exited.
Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy
Well said Ed. I too, avoid the MSM like the plague. YouTube
is where I go for news & commentary. One of the things I have enjoyed about Tulsi is reading the comments when MSNBC & friends does a hatchet job on her. The comments from left and right support her.
Tucker has long been anti-regime change war. His interview with Bolton was classic. His appreciation of Tulsi is heart-felt & sincere. As he often points out, he & Tulsi don't agree at all on social issues, but war transcends all that stuff.
As long as folks allow themselves to be sucked into IDPol disagreements the 1% will keep on running the show. People have so much in common once they stop focusing on their differences. Perhaps some day we'll figure that out.
chuck utzman
TULSI 2020
I have to hand it
to Tucker. Although I would disagree with him most of the time on other issues, he is almost unique among cable hosts in bringing on dissenting voices, those who go against the MIC/DeepState grain. On regime change wars and on Russiagate.
But I only catch him on his good days, via YT, when he is doing good work and allowing on guests that Msnbc and CNN shun. Or when he is taking to task those DeepState-promoting guests the other outlets treat with kid gloves.
Is it because Roger Ailes is no longer around to run roughshod in RW ways over Fox's programming, or b/c with Russiagate counter-programming TC is trying to defend Trump? And is he trying to also influence regular viewer Trump to make good FP decisions with his anti-regime change commentary? Or has he just decided to stop marching in lockstep, like a good little bow-tied boy, with the GOP party line?
Thank you, thank you
for this! I have been screaming about this for a very long time.
Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy
Carlson is ok only when it pushes his anti-left agenda
it's like how Maddow and Hartmann were good when they were bashing Bush. It turns out they're not so good on the issues, they're just anti-Repub and they got exposed when Obama came in.
Same with any of the Fox people who occasionally sound reasonable.
Hartmann is good
on socio-economic issues generally. Always good for a consistent revisiting of FDR and the New Deal days. Good on unions (yesterday his show dealt exclusively with that).
He's also become less of a polite, softy-progressive lately, from what I've noticed. More willing to use stark terms most pols still shy away from in discussing the current political situation.
Best described as Just About Anyone Except Trump. Definitely wants him out.
The stupid: his R-gate promotion, and his endless and boring reading of the entire Mueller Report, as if reading the whole thing aloud to his listeners will make the initial R-gate charges have more substance. To his credit, in the past he has had on R-gate skeptic Stephen Cohen numerous times. (More stupid: his 2 books he "co-authored" on the JFK assass'n.)
yes, Russia
That's when I stopped listening to Hartmann.
It's also why I've crossed off several of these Dems in the last 2 nights. Anyone who says "Russia!" is right out.
Triage
Exactly. The instant I get wind of any form of Russia-gate, it's an instant strike-through on their name. From that point on, everything with that person is suspect. This includes Bernie, as much as I want to like him. No more $27 from me.
I have a set of filters (think of email spam filters) that I can use to rather quickly eliminate the chaff. The Russia-gate filter is either at the top of the list or very, very high. My anti-war filter is equal to the Russia-gate filter. It occurs to me that I haven't run into a Russia-gater who is anti-war. Perhaps there are anti-war types who are also Russia-gaters, but the two seem mutually exclusive to me.
There are other filters, but the two mentioned save me a lot of time, trouble, and money.
wokkamile--I'll give you 'noisy.' ;-D
But, holding out on 'armchair.'
IOW, I can't see where that term could apply to anyone who's been employed by DOD--whether military or civilian service--when it comes to discussing the topic of the MIC.
OTOH, it would appropriately apply to individuals who have no direct institutional knowledge of the MIC/DOD.
Again, my 2 cents.
BTW, didn't know that TG is a medic. Glad you mentioned it. It can only be considered 'a plus.'
Mollie
Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.
Don't overthink it.
Tucker understands what most other corporate media pundits don't...
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
You nailed it, NHK! :-) EOM
Mollie
Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.
Yes and no
Peace sells to the people whose lives are put on the lines with these inhumane "wars of liberation". But peace is antithetical to the MIC.
Remember the Golden Rule: he who has the gold, makes the rules.