Updated: Tulsi at 5% in New Hampshire, 4% in Iowa--in Polls That Don't Count
UPDATED: with 2 more polls--that don't count--where Tulsi achieved 2% in both polls.
One is the latest Economist/YouGov poll here.
The much more interesting one is in SOUTH CAROLINA, where up until now, Tulsi has pretty much always gotten 0%. ChangeResearch did a nice poll of the state, and Tulsi appears in 7th place with 2%. The poll is here.
It pretty much seems to be true that Tulsi is polling at 2% or more in all polls except those needed to qualify for the debates!
-----------------
Yes, you guessed it! More polls showing Tulsi gaining ground, but oh wouldn't you know it!, these polls are not in the DNC-approved list.
In a New Hampshire Gravis poll, yes, look at that! Tulsi in 6th place (one of the entries above her is Uncertain) with 5%, her highest poll ever! She rates above Gillibrand, O'Rourke, Booker, Klobuchar, Yang, Steyer, and all the other minor players, and in 5th place above her is Harris with 7%--only a 2% difference!!!
In a poll of the Iowa State Fair, Tulsi ranks 7th place with 4%. Okay, okay, this one is much more unscientific (not to mention it is limited to the Des Moines area) a poll than the Gravis poll above, but it shows that Tulsi can rank more than 1% in Iowa.
Word on the street is that 6 more qualifying polls will be released before the Aug. 28 cut-off date. Tulsi needs to get 2% in at least 3 of them to qualify for debate #3.
Comments
I wish you all the best.
While I've decided to not participate in the upcoming
erectionselections, I still take pride in knowing howfuckedscrewed up it will be.The game is on and it called duopoly.
To the ptb (powers that be), tulsi has no chance. She's already been reassigned (normal reserve training) to low or non important status.
Just to piss them all off, I will gladly and fully support her reelection to the 2nd district of Hawaii.
I give congrats to you for your support of her.
Nothing ventured is rarely gained.
Well done ap.
Regardless of the path in life I chose, I realize it's always forward, never straight.
Why do you feel so compelled...
to jump in at top level of so many pro voting essays to tell us all once again that you aren't going to vote?
@JtC it is either an
it is either an advanced AI program or he gets paid to.
You got a fiver?
If not, I'm AI.
Such bullshit.
Regardless of the path in life I chose, I realize it's always forward, never straight.
I don't think Pricknick is an AI
I just think he's pissed off. As someone else who's not voting, for pretty much the same reasons, I can understand it.
That said, might be nice to wait till somebody who really wants to engage with the essay starts the conversation--so the essayist has a chance to talk to somebody about the things they wanted to talk about. That's not a requirement; it's not like it's a right the author has or is a verboten action on Pricknick's part; it's just a courtesy one could extend.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
You aren't voting?
I would encourage everyone to vote, just not for politicians of the two ruling class political parties. I definitely think people should for state, county and city referendums and initiatives if they have them.
I should have said
I'm not voting for politicians. I like Bernie and Tulsi, but Bernie has offered no substantive or convincing comments about how he's going to keep from getting cheated this time. I also do have some policy problems with both Bernie and Tulsi, but before all that, I have to be assured that I'm not participating in a farce. Given the available evidence, it seems that American campaign politics is Calvinball played by fascists, and that our (the voters') opinion is not required, at least for the primary part of it. And if we have no real say in the primary, which is controlled by the two major parties and the media corporations, it doesn't matter much what we say in the general, once our menu choices have been limited down to two that are acceptable to said fascists.
But I do vote on local issues and state referenda and such.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
That's bullshit...
he's neither.
Edited to add: Stop with the accusations, I've noticed you do that quite a bit.
@JtC I do it because I
I do it because I know for fact the govt employs bots and agents to go to every leftist website including this one to do exactly what pricknick does.
I trust no one.
Well, except you. You put up this place. So I will respect your wishes and keep those thoughts to myself.
Well, of course the government (and big corporations
and probably also private security firms like Blackwater) employ operatives, both to sow discord, spread disinformation, and do character assassinations their own selves, and also to run up to twenty sockpuppets at a time which do the same, multiplying their influence by the score. That's been clear since 2011.
And I understand that you trust no one, and that you probably often have suspicions that people--who may be people or bots--are manipulating the discourse. It's often enough true online.
I have similar suspicions about posters when I'm online, but unless one has proof, which is almost impossible to get, it's usually pointless to make the accusation. Best is to just adjust one's own behavior in response to that particular, er, entity (whether carbon- or silicon-based). At most, one should share one's suspicions in private amongst trusted friends.
Announcing one's suspicions to the world accomplishes little, and actually could create an environment very friendly to whatever operatives actually are present (along with their socks).
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Thank you for two excellent responses, CSTMS
People are very frustrated because they know that the system is rigged against them and they feel powerless in the face of that. Voting is the one place that the general populace has traditionally felt some degree of power, but 2016 when the DNC and the Cllinton campaign openly cheated against Bernie did more to destroy people's faith in our elections than anything prior.
Now we are seeing it again with the DNC's weird rules for qualifying candidates to be able to make the debate stage. They changed the criteria in midstream for the second debate after the American public made an all out effort to get Mike Gravel qualified. I have posted my own thoughts here as why polls should not be a part of that criteria.
No wonder people are cynical. I am very cynical too. Each of us has a breaking point in which our cynicism takes over. I have not yet reached mine, but it may not be far off. What I am saying is that we all should be more empathetic to each others' positions without being so judgmental.
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're welcome!
The reason 2016 was so devastating is that we got to watch Hillary Clinton commit election fraud with impunity just as George W. Bush had done twice in the early oughts. Therefore, both parties are in favor of committing election fraud, both are doing it, and in fact, the Democrats actually came out in court saying "We can cheat if we want to. We don't have to give you a fair contest, or a contest at all. You gonna do something about it? I didn't think so."
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
And BTW,
your last sentence of that comment is solid gold.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Also BTW
I love your Doug Hatlem quote.
It's good, isn't it. LOL
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Thank you
I really wish we all could see the world through the eyes of empathy. We would be much better human beings if we did. And for the record, I am very, very flawed in that regard, but at least I recognize it and that is the first step to becoming more empathetic toward each other, both here and in the broader context.
Thank you again, CSTMS.
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 like to be reminded
of the govt. war against the Left. It's important to me regarding what I write. Thank you Blair.
Hey, no problem
although I can't say "it's a free country" anymore, I still believe firmly in freedom of opinion, including the freedom to disagree with me.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
People who have participated in elections
...for all their lives are dismayed. Years of denial have made the betrayal feel immediate. They have not had time to build proper defenses and gain an historical perspective of the bamboozlement. They are getting used to a very new, and very bad, social contract. So they test it; see how it sounds. See how people respond.
Remember when people first arrived here, how skewed they were? How long it took them to adjust? How everyone had to write the same cathartic story about the same betrayal? We were all patient while this adjustment was going on. 2020 is the first eyes-wide-open election for many. When reality hits, it smacks hard. No wonder so many avoid it.
And there is no support and reinforcement in the real world for them. It sucks to be hung out. Now that you've pointed it out, I'm sure many will be more mindful going forward.
That's my take.
I will not be mindful
for those who demand adherence.
Thank you for pointing out the obvious.
Regardless of the path in life I chose, I realize it's always forward, never straight.
It's rude...
to the author and when it becomes a repetitive pattern it becomes rude to all that may hold a contrary opinion.
I shall reply no more
to political matters.
Does that satisfy you?
If not, I shall reply no more.
That's your call.
Regardless of the path in life I chose, I realize it's always forward, never straight.
I see I'm too late to make a difference in this discussion.
Which is too bad, because I like you, Pricknick, even though I don't particularly agree with thread-jumping.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Top level?
You, of all people, should have known that.
I will not participate at the national level. I will support local.
By your comment, I should just totally bow out.
Stick it.
Regardless of the path in life I chose, I realize it's always forward, never straight.
Yeah, top level...
as in trying to control the narrative.
Stick it? What does that mean?
Whatever you want it to mean
I'm neither a political pundit nor a whore for all things political.
I greatly appreciated the diarist for their input of political matters. Guess you missed it.
Because I do not support the farce that is the national political scene, does not mean I do not support political matters.
Please tell me why you were offended by my initial post. If you can't do that, I have no reason to believe that I offended others here as it was not my intention.
If, on the other hand, I offended someone other than you, I'll make my apologies to them and only them with an open heart and honestly.
Regardless of the path in life I chose, I realize it's always forward, never straight.
I'm not offended...
I'm speaking up for those that may be offended though. We have this little rule against threadjacking and when I see a repetitive pattern I call it out. If I see what I consider a problem I address it, that's what the moderating role entails.
I'm doing my job, if you can't accept that then you can stick it, any offense at that phrase being pointed at myself notwithstanding.
Guilty as charged.
While I frequent this site, I never intend to threadjack.
It may be a case of my commenting too early within the diary. I mean no harm by doing so but when something hits my radar, I tend to remark. Such is my way.
Peace and good night.
Regardless of the path in life I chose, I realize it's always forward, never straight.
He means "top level" as in making the first comment
on an essay. What I call "thread-jumping." It was standard practice of the bullies over at DKos, so people are sensitive to it.
One gets places that are rubbed raw by multiple experiences of toxic bullshit, as I'm certain you understand.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
It's your choice,
but I'm pretty sure TPTB see us as a mass of faceless, mindless, barely human beings ("useless eaters") who do not deserve the franchise and are not capable of discerning truth from falsehood to make wise choices. They absolutely do not want us to ever again be in control of "our" government, and so they prefer that we accept without complaint what they give us. They have already as good as disenfranchised us with their slippery little voting machines, plutocratically controlled media, ever heightening surveillance and censorship.
If we do not vote, if we do not participate, if we give up on the entire process, they will simply take it as confirmation that we truly are nothing more than the masses who exist to be utilized, controlled, and dispensed with.
Not voting is taken as passivity and a sign of assent. Not voting is the ultimate "you win."
That's how I see it. As long as there are candidates like Bernie and Tulsi who actively buck the system, I have someone to vote for. And when all that's left are two proven sell-outs, well then I'll vote third party or write in someone decent.
But I want them to know we're still out here in large numbers, and we're watching them.
Lurking in the wings is Hillary, like some terrifying bat hanging by her feet in a cavern below the DNC. A bat with theropod instincts. -- Fred Reed https://tinyurl.com/vgvuhcl
Amen.
Someone posted on Twitter
That a robo poll called them. Press 1 thru 6 for Bernie, Biden, etc. 7 for all others. Pushing 7 she found Tulsi was not an option on the list of remaining options. But she didn't catch the name of the pollsters so there's no confirmation.
I read this tweet too
How fair can polls be if they don't poll for every person who is running?
I just read this article on how ByeDone's poll numbers are being made up by the media. I'm sure it's no surprise to people here though.
Exclusive: Joe Biden’s frontrunner status is a media-driven mirage
Hillary ran on not being Trump and that didn't work out very well for her. She thought she had the election in the bag and thought nothing of calling Trump supporters deplorables. The primary felt more like a coronation than an actual election. And her supporters are still saying that it was sexism and misogyny that cost her the election, but they have no problem saying horrible things about Tulsi. Including calling her a Russian agent even though she is on active duty...go figure. Hmm I wonder if Albright will repeat herself and say that there is a special place in hell for any woman who doesn't vote for a woman this time? Nah..
Was Humpty Dumpty pushed?
I had the same experience.
Robo call. List of names with numbers to press. An "other candidates" option. And no Tulsi. I didn't get the name of the polling group either. I'm not sure it was given.
This just makes my heart sink
because Tulsi recently requested that those of her supporters who normally do not pick up calls from unfamiliar numbers start doing so in case it's a national pollster. She desperately needs to raise her polling presence. But to think they're closing her out of the process at the front end! Is that even legal?
Yes, we should pay extra close attention to any and all political calls & emails we receive, to get some idea of who is doing what. Can't trust anyone anymore.
Lurking in the wings is Hillary, like some terrifying bat hanging by her feet in a cavern below the DNC. A bat with theropod instincts. -- Fred Reed https://tinyurl.com/vgvuhcl
Is this legal?
Possibly not. The DNC made a contract with people who are running to be fair in all matters so I think Tulsi might be able to challenge them not including her in the polls. The question is will she if she gets cut out of the debates?
This is what Bernie could have called them on if he wanted to fight them rigging it last time because that is what the Becks tried to do, but the judge said that they didn't have standing to sue them. IIRC the judge wasn't happy with what the DNC did, but his hands were tied on what he could do. I recently read something about that and will try to find it again if you're interested?
Was Humpty Dumpty pushed?
Speaking of polls
Here's the new DK poll where ByeDone is losing to Warren. Again. Bernie's second and Kambama is far behind. If Biden flops out I think the DNC will push Warren who is nowhere close to being Bernie.
Was Humpty Dumpty pushed?
Democrattc Party lost in 2020 before the Iowa Primary.
Approximately the same time that they lost in 2016.
GOP is still campaigning against non-white immigrants and "extreme socialism."
Party Democrats identify as "not Donald Trump" while running toward the Center.
Your empire dies and all you get is a lousy hat.
I used to think Warren was too "radical" for TPTB
Not in actions mind you, but in words anyway. Now I'm starting to agree with you that she may be "Plan B". They gave Kamala a strong push, but the dogs aren't eating that dog food. No one else seems to be rallying the mainstream attention, which is always the tell.
Warren is probably the ultimate candidate for the modern DNC. She's a woman. She's a "person of color" (snicker!) She's "capitalist to her bones" and isn't a scary socialist. She comes of as studied and professitorial rather than Trump's impulsive shooting from the hip. Most importantly, she can convincingly talk the language of progressives while still advocating for neoliberal incrementalism, which is a trick no one else has managed to pull off.
It doesn't seem like any of the mainstream Dems have an issue with her, so I would imagine the idea is to make Warren "good enough" for Sanders and Gabbard supporters. I'm sure the last debate helped her standing with Sanders people.
Idolizing a politician is like believing the stripper really likes you.
Warren's not all that beloved
Check out the reddits of "Way of the Bern" and "Kossacks for Sanders."
I don't think she's in it for any other reason than to take away votes from Bernie to ensure Biden's nomination. She'll never endorse a socialist much less agree to stand as a VP for one.
And I really don't think TPTB are gonna support her in the end. Right now, she's just the MSM's flavor of the month to siphon votes off from Bernie. Before her it was Kamala, then Buttigieg. I imagine even Booker will get his turn before the southern primaries.
Biden is still the candidate to beat. I don't see that changing anytime soon. Even if he continues to stutter and sputter, there's always some trick that can be pulled out whether it be an Obama endorsement or Michelle or whatever.
Beloved? No.
that’s not the point. The idea is to get them to hold their nose and vote for her rather than going third party or Trump.
At this point, I wouldn’t expect Sanders-centric hangouts to be showing much love yet. But I’m certainly seeing comments in progressive but more candidate agnostic places that people are still supporting Bernie or Tulsi but giving Warren another look. I’m seeing a lot of “she’s my third choice” or “I would still vote for her” or “at least she’s better than _____” which I think is all TPTB want.
If Warren gets the nom, I fully expect to see people reasoning themselves into voting for her which is mission accomplished for the Dems. You still may be right that the Dems in power won’t support her. I’m still not 100% convinced yet that they will. I do think there’s an effort going on to bolster her support though and I think it’s possible she could be “the one” if they don’t have anyone else waiting in the wings when and if Biden flames out.
Idolizing a politician is like believing the stripper really likes you.
Obama vs Clintons Inc
I see your point.
But I think the DNC is still predominantly controlled by Obama folks. Some Clintons Inc. folk are definitely edging towards Warren. Long ago here, I posted some conjecture involving Peter Daou who seemed to have a change of heart where he vowed to stop attacking Bernie, saying he would support and vote for him if he got the nomination. I surmised that he was just trying to get in with Bernie folks so when the time came, he could claim to be fair minded blah blah blah but push Berners to support and vote for Warren. Well, guess what? He just tweeted something along those lines already.
Democratic operatives, people with political jobs, and people beholden to Obama over the years will ultimately do what they're expected and called upon to do. They will get their friends and families out to vote and phone bank and canvass so they can keep their jobs. And that ain't gonna be done to support Warren -- even though she votes to increase Trump's already increased military budgets..
It might depend
on whether it's a repeat of 2016 and Bernie gets screwed again in the primary process (Tulsi is already getting screwed in the peculiar, suspect polls that count). Then if Liz emerges on top, you would hear some grumbling, and there would be some holdouts. But not to the extent of 2016 and Hillary. Liz would be considered just a fortunate, innocent beneficiary of a biased process, whereas HRC was involved in it up to her neck.
I will continue to do what I can to support both Tulsi and Bernie. But if neither emerges and EW does, she will get my vote against Donald, no hesitation. A no-brainer.
Perhaps I see the Donald presidency as more of a clear and present danger to democracy than others here. I also increasingly see him as a grave danger to world peace -- a pre-arranged war vs Iran seems to be in the works, pre-election, designed to rally Americans around the flag to prevent the religious crazies running things in Iran from developing nukes. Increasingly likely as the economy seems about to fall into recession before next Nov, and as Donald's favorable/unfavorable numbers in key battleground states are well underwater. He is not going to just sit back and take a drubbing in the general election. Something must be done to prevent this, to prevent damage to his fragile ego.
There are about 18 far worse candidates out there than Liz, most easily in the corporatist center of the playing field. Not a difficult call for me, even if on this board I am probably in a small minority.
What are you exactly saying here?
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
I thought it was
clear -- Donald is not going to take any chances losing an election. If he knows he's been bleeding support in the key states, and probably even if it's close in the polls, he will act in false flag ways (plans already on the books, one of which, in June was already carried out) to whip up the people to get behind him in supporting the troops being shipped to Iran (my leading contender for new foreign war). Doubly so if the economic situation begins to go south.
Clear enough?
Hmmmm...
So, he'll be a politician then?
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
No, going into
Iran takes it out of the mere politician realm. This is the stuff of reckless dictators.
Since when do Presidents call the shots
with regard to global domination and asset stripping? We'd be seeing the same military aggression towards Iran, especially if it benefits both Israel and the U.S., with anyone in office.
Hillary was banging on this drum even before she started campaigning.
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
I'm suggesting
that whether Donald-driven or driven by his crazed natsec advisers like Bolton or Pompous, we could be soon in deep deep water with a war against Iran, no mere Iraq or Kuwait, no mere asset-stripping foreign adventure that stays mostly local.
This would be something likely to be met with fierce effective resistance, and likely with the military assistance of Russia sooner or not much later. Iow, possibly the beginning of WW3, though it sounds a bit fantastic to so state today.
Donald is ignorant and bully-boy stupid enough to agree, or acquiesce, to such a reckless scheme if he were confident it would help his re-elect.
I would say this is a Republican thing, to whip up a little war for political purposes, except for Lyndon (nominally a D) and his GoT Res in mid-64. But little VN is nothing compared to what would be stirred up with Iran.
So yeah, seen in this perspective, the upcoming election here is very consequential.
Edit: To respond more directly to the above post: I haven't gotten so jaded and cynical that I see an equivalency with the choice of a R or D president in office, and certainly not with this extremely dangerous idiot Donald. At worst, we would have a D in there who would offer just enough resistance to the MIC crazies -- and sometimes just enough is quite enough. See, e.g., Obama, who occasionally mustered up enough courage to say No. Even the weak-willed O had the intelligence to see the grave danger in some of the Pentagon/CIA proposals, particularly in Syria. Iran is far worse, and Donald has no idea what it would lead to. There is a difference, and it matters.
A false equivalency leads to a blasé attitude towards Donald, which is cynicism gone too far, and seems to suggest the 2020 election doesn't matter. But this is a board which welcomes a wide variety of views, and I've offered mine.
When I hear rationales coming from Dems
That the "Republicans are worse" and that Donald Trump is going to drag us into an apocalyptic WW3 war, ergo, we must vote for a Dem, I am reminded of the warnings I heard in 2016 about jackbooted fascist thugs coming for us in the middle of the night if we didn't vote for Hillary. Same thing now only slightly different. Good luck with that sales pitch.
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
Yes, in nearly all
respects, the Rs are worse, far worse in most cases. Domestically and in FP. This is why I've never voted R, ever.
If you think Trump is just another garden variety R president, much like previous R and D presidents, we have been living on different planets, or in a parallel universe.
All depends on the filter
Through which you are "seeing" this kabuki show. Frankly I think anyone concerned about this election should be gazing their eyes to which side has a better tech team. Compromising the voting machines is, after all, where elections are really won and lost these days...
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
Election theft
and voter suppression, rolling back the 1965 Voting Rights Act, has been a f/t effort by the Rs since at least the 2000 cycle, a clear enough example of Rs not being fully on board with democracy. The Ds should have been calling this out loudly since then, and in the past 3 yrs instead of the R-gate nonsense. Ds should have been all over the media calling for comprehensive election reform, including beefing up the right to vote, and proposing the abolition of the EC or drawing attention to the National Popular Vote proposal to sidestep the EC.
But Ds haven't been the party, at the state and national levels, which has aggressively engaged in trying to suppress the vote (mostly of POC). Yet another example of how the parties are different, in significant ways.
Election theft is a bi-partisan problem
I think it's very naive of you to suggest that Election Theft is only a Republican problem. There is a reason why the Dems have not called the Republicans out about Voter Supression and Compromising Voting Machines. Because they are just as guilty. Except with the Dems, they suppress votes within their own party. I'm still waiting for my votes in the 2016 California Primary to be counted.
Rah, Rah, Rah, Go Blue!
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
So we should just pretend that Libya wasn't invaded
by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton because they are democrats? Or that Obama didn't overthrow the Ukraine government? Or he didn't invade Syria?
Yeah Obama sure resisted the mic because he was a democrat. Come on , dude or dudette. Don't pretend that democrats are any different than republicans when it comes to war. You are aware aren't you that JFK was the one who put 'military advisers' in Vietnam and that it was done on false pretenses just like every damn war that both parties support? Please..both parties serve the same group of people and that is the mic and the oligarch party.
BTW.. Pelosi ran on rolling back the Bush abuses and told us that she was going to hold him accountable for his crimes, but instead she decided that she and her fellow democrats would continue supporting Bush and Cheney's war crimes in Iraq. Now she and her fellow democrats will not do anything to rein in the imperial presidency that Obama -D left him. Sorry dude...I'm not buying your BS.
Was Humpty Dumpty pushed?
The Devil gets a different skin suit to wear
...every time we elect a new President.
I've always wondered if the First Ladies ever suspected what was happening.
Perhaps
the First Ladies made a Faustian bargain.
"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
You create a jumble
of bs straw men in order to show D presidents have done bad things. That wasn't quite what I argued above. I said, despite his flaws and personal weakness, even Obama knew there were times, as he was about to be led into dicey waters abroad, when he managed to show some intelligence and fortitude and say no, whereas the ignorant, reckless and ruthless Donald is not personally suited to do same. I said nothing about Obama not making FP and DP blunders -- clearly, he did, on Libya and domestically on his weak tea ACA, and so on with other failures.
As to VN, it was Ike, not JFK, who sent in the first military advisers, not so much on false pretenses but as a minimum military commitment to prop up the SVN military situation and prevent a complete takeover in the south. Note here dude or dudette, JFK never sent in combat units, always saying No to the JCS. Some speculate his refusal to play ball with the MIC in VN was a major factor in his assassination.
For false pretenses, you would look to Lyndon's Gulf of Tonkin Res, a little scheme that was in the works months before the mostly nonexistent and clearly provoked attacks.
Re Pelosi, I don't recall saying a good word about her in these pages, ever. Dead wood long past her sellout date.
So that is why we are in a war with Iran right now huh?
Bolton and Pompeo tried to get Trump to start bombing Iran after a few false flags, but he so far has not taken the bait.
As I have pointed out numerous times here democrats voted for many of Trump's unqualified cabinet picks. They voted to roll back banking regulations. They voted to give Trump (the person who is likely to get us into a nuclear war and will not follow constitutional laws) more power to spy on us. Are voting for Trump's unprecedented unqualified right wing judges that have the potential to roll back decades of work previous congress (and mainly D) legislation. No difference between the two parties? Darn right when it comes to pushing the oligarch's legislation there is not a dime's worth of difference in my opinion. You seem to see things differently though.
Oh yeah, both parties just voted to increase the military budget and give Trump and the pentagon more money than was asked for. Think if we had a democrat in the WH things would be different? Look at what Obama did for the spying industrial complex after he too ran on rolling back the Bush abuses. Instead of letting the Patriot act sunset it became permanent under his watch and then just for sh*ts and giggles he passed the NDAA... you can look up that horrible thing. And under Obama's watch a rule was passed to let the banks take people's money that they have in the bank, pensions funds, ect if another recession hits. Look up how well that worked for the people of Greece. Not much differences between the two corrupt parties.
False pretenses you say?
You mean like our having to go into Libya to protect people from Gaddaffi's troops that were raping women after he gave his troops Viagra that never happened? How about his reason for going into Syria and watching as ISIS grew in strength because he wanted them to overthrow Assad? Or arming and funding AQ for he same reason? I could go on...
Was Humpty Dumpty pushed?
How is what you're describing
different from what TPTB have been doing for at least the last 20 years?
"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
It's not
but this person seems to refuse to see democrats for what they are no matter how many people tell shim that its blowing BS.
Was Humpty Dumpty pushed?
As far as I can tell
It's attempted sheepdogging.
You noticed that too, eh?
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
Kinda hard to miss.
DBAA
I call 'em like I see 'em.
If that's BAA, I apologize.
Some of us are particularly sensitive to that kind of thing after the last election and everything that's come after.
LOL.
You think the pre-arranged war vs. Iran has anything to do with Trump? HRC projected that 10,000 miles away during her campaigning.
The real clear and present danger to our "democracy" is that Washington exists at all.
And if you don't think "Liz" is a corporate centrist, then you haven't been doing your homework.
I'm thinking we should go back to being colonies
Grow our own food, live off the grid, take care of our neighbors, and when we can come up with something better than taxes, tell TPTB to suck it.
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
Sign me up!
Trump ran on non interventionism
and that was one of the reasons his supporters voted for him over Hillary so he would shed lots of support if he does start a war with Iran. Lots of them are ticked that he won't fire Bolton.
Was Humpty Dumpty pushed?
This
Warren is probably the ultimate candidate for the modern DNC
Wwarren is running to take votes from Bernie cuz they think people think she is enough like him. She is not. You and I discussed it I think.
I posted this before, buy in case people haven't read it
The diffrences between Sanders and Warren
This is an excellent article that not only talks about that, but about how the democrats have stopped doing anything for the working class since before the Clintons slimed their way into DC. I think this tweet is the best way for people to see who Warren really is.
ETA the photo of Warren giving Trump a standing ovation while Bernie just sat there. The tweet doesn't show that clearly.
We saw that, Liz and you aren't fooling us.
Was Humpty Dumpty pushed?
Yep it was me.
I’m not ashamed to admit, I was fooled by her when I first noticed her in the Obama days. Someone over at TOP (I can’t remember who) encouraged me to take a closer look as things were not how they seemed. The link you posted really spells it out.
To me the ultimate Warren moment was during Ben Carson’s hearings for HUD secretary when she expressed “grave” concern about his fitness for the office and yada yada yada. Still voted to approve him because “the president is entitled to his picks” (or something very close to those words.) The kicker? Trump still would have gotten “his pick” without her vote. Her desire to maintain the status quo of the system trumped (heh) any supposed concerns she had that the guy would be a disaster in the position.
So yeah, she’s the candidate of the DNC’s dreams. Same old same old, but with the better branding they are always convinced will win them elections. When they find a younger version who can check off more IdPol bingo boxes, watch out!
Idolizing a politician is like believing the stripper really likes you.
::cough:: AOC ::cough::
AOC is a communist compared to Elizabeth Warren
Warren, who switched from Repub to Dem because she decided the Dems were better for the market. I interpret that as meaning the Dems were more like what she imagined fiscal Repubs should be, while the Repubs were winger kooks.
if i might offer this instead?
aoc 'pretends to be' a democratic socialist, but if you flip through her votes, tweets, letters to the secretary of gunboat diplomacy pompeo, and funding sources, you'll see that she's barely 'progressive'. and yes, liz warren has been very clear that she's a capitalist, and good on her for her honesty about that.
Thanks, WD.
Took the words right out of my mouth, and made them more eloquent.
i do check a few twitter accounts every
day or two, but the tankies (socialists, roughly) who live in her district are two. they dog her trail, and i do understand why that is. now wsws does feature her now and again, but all of this concerning puerto rico pretty much disordered my ignorant brain further:
'Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to Wall Street financial vultures: Please be nice to Puerto Rico Genevieve Leigh, 10 August 2019
well, you get the gist, amigo. perpetual victim AOC has been a burr under my saddle blanket for a long, long, time. she speaks 'just enough truth to power' to pass as the brand she chooses to be. quite the socialist revolutionary, iow.
Time will tell
But so far I haven’t seen a lot to make me think you’re wrong.
Idolizing a politician is like believing the stripper really likes you.
However, she's also a former Harvard professor.
Trump will have no problem framing her as an elitist on that basis (Ivy League ivory tower etc etc). And he will probably have little problem painting her as a bureaucrat.
If I wanted Trump to get elected--assuming that elections even matter any more, assuming that they aren't predetermined like pro wrestling matches--I'd advise him to take no corporate money and no money from Wall St. He is rich and he's friends with lots of rich individuals. He could easily take the Ro Khanna loophole and just take individual donations from rich people. Meanwhile, Elizabeth Warren would continue to talk about how she won't apologize for "not disarming" (her words) by ceasing to take corporate money. She'd pretty much sink herself. He could also make some comments about how she's getting along fine with Wall St now.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Trump
calling EW, or any Dem "elitist", would open him up to "Listen to the Manhattan real estate Billionaire accusing me of being an elitist. Donald: how many millions did you get by way of gift, loan, income streams and inheritance from your multimillionaire Daddy? By one estimate in the NYT, this amount totaled roughly $450 million during your Daddy's lifetime. And that "salary" Daddy began giving you starting at age 3 -- was it $200,000/year?" And so on.
Elitist, bureaucrat -- nah. You know what Trump would focus on, repeatedly call her -- Pocahontas.
The key issues -- the economy and war -- are still in play. They will overwhelm any juvenile name calling in the campaign. The economy will be lucky to hold together until the election, by a slender thread and some cheap glue, and war, as I suggested above, is never far from being a quick fix for Donald's re-elect prospects, as he likely sees it.
Unless we're talking Tulsi or Bernie
Dems seem to be pretty reluctant to make those arguments.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
I would recommend
it in the case of EW in particular. I see a lot of nice lady in her, too nice and proper to be on the same stage with a rough-hewn bully like Donald. She would need to come prepared with such zingers, and more.
Now, now,
We can't get too extreme. Center-right middle America in flyover country won't stand for it.
We're only thinking of them.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
But does she have hot sauce in her purse?
Based on the barftacular PERSIST: Elizabeth Warren stickers popping up on brand new fancyass SUVs at my local grocery, it looks like Warren is where the local Party people are starting to coalesce. Fitting, since they're all Republicans wearing jackass costumes anyway.
I don't vote for Republicans, so there are zero circumstances under which I will vote for Warren. Since last cycle's shitshow never ended and just kinda slouched rough beast style into this cycle's shitshow, at this point I'm not sure I'll ever vote for another Democrat either. (Technically speaking I've been an anarchist since the 80s, I just enjoy the civic ritual of the vote, probably in much the same way people who have walked away from their childhood faith sometimes still enjoy a gathering at the old church.)
No hot sauce, but a whole lot of maize.
You bring up a good point. Has Warren learned her lesson on cultural appropriation? She seemed to be more sorry that she got caught than actually acknowledging the absurdity of what she did.
Idolizing a politician is like believing the stripper really likes you.
Remember, it gets goodness from maize.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Haha. That takes me back!
Related, maybe they could try “I can’t believe she’s not Sanders!” as a slogan
Idolizing a politician is like believing the stripper really likes you.
Warren is now their go-to
Assuming they can't salvage Kamala. They seem to be thrashing around, going back and forth between Assad and Modi smears. I'm not sure either's going to work out for them. Americans don't care more about Syria, and certainly don't care more about India, than they do about themselves. And for themselves, they are 1)sick of bullshit and 2)sick of the wars.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
The way I see it is
that the Clinton wing which still controls the Democratic party desperately wants Kamala Harris whom I characterize as Hillary 2.0 with slightly more charisma than the original. Kamala comes with a lot of baggage, not at much as Hillary, but enough. And I believe her to have sociopathic tendencies. Warren is Obama 2.0 without the charisma. Warren is a chameleon who will say whatever she needs to say to get elected and then will prove that she is just another empty suit. Warren will not stand up for anything she pretends she wants in the campaign.
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 think you nailed it.
I think we’re seeing the Clinton v Obama battle play out again.
Idolizing a politician is like believing the stripper really likes you.
Pages