Kim Iverson's response to allegations that Tulsi is not progressive
I was thinking of using Kim Iversen’s recent video on political positions as a comment for Not Henry Kissinger’s essay on "The Democratic TriParty (Part 1: The Players)." But since his essay is the first of several parts on a more specific topic, this might be too far OT, so I’ve decided to present it on its own. Kim’s video offers some necessary definitions with which we may or may not agree, along with a rational defense of Tulsi’s inherent progressivism.
A few days ago, Kim Iversen published a video on the reaction to Tulsi’s Dave Rubin interview. She addresses the assertion made by some Democrats that the interview proved Tulsi is not a progressive. Using topics from the interview, Kim defends Tulsi’s progressive credentials and then, at about 13:28, launches into a discussion of two different but often overlapping political movements, progressivism vs. populism.
Roughly following the order of the interview topics, Iversen starts with Tulsi’s lawsuit against Google and Tulsi's rationale that social media monopolies have too much power, that they infringe on basic freedom of speech, and government regulation should be applied to Google. Iversen notes that none of these stances can be called non-progressive. Tulsi’s stance on abortion is inconclusive; she favors absolute choice in first two trimesters, but would not require government intervention at any point beyond that. Tulsi’s position on guns includes universal background checks but she does not advocate an outright ban on guns, which strikes some as rightwing. Kim notes that few Dem politicians want to ban guns. Kim discusses the allegation that talking to “the other side” is disloyal, especially speaking in normal non-confrontational tones, person to person. Yet Tulsi is also criticized for opposing regime change wars but does not oppose war in all circumstances. Kim points out that Tulsi’s preference for sitting down and meeting with dictators and other undesirables is a means of avoiding war.
Kim discusses how Tulsi’s refusal to take hard black-or-white stances on issues leads people to conclude that she’s a compromiser or a moderate, that she’s playing both sides of the political spectrum . Kim proposes that one can be a “nuanced radical,” citing Andrew yang as an example. Tulsi’s distaste for labels leads some to say that since she doesn’t define herself as a progressive, she isn’t one. Kim then lists some items from Tulsi’s clearly progressive record, such as supporting Bernie when no one else would in 2016, actually being there at Standing Rock, calling since 2012 for the restoration of Glass Steagall, opposing any and all cuts to SS and Medicare under Obama, and her unwavering support for universal health care and single payer.
Then at about 13:28, Kim begins a very interesting discussion of the terms “progressivism” and “populism.” She sees these political positions existing on both sides of the political spectrum and notes that this contributes to the appeal of Tulsi and Yang to members of both political parties. Kim uses definitions from difference.wiki, which defines “populism” as a movement started by farmers in the late 19th century for changes to the economic system, and “progressivism” as a movement started in the early 20th century by an educated urban middle class seeking reforms to the political system. Populism calls for tax reforms, labor laws, unions, universal health care. Populism brought about the 8 hour work day, regulation of banks and industries, civil service. Progressivism brought about reforms to inflation and corruption of the business class. By these definitions, Kim considers Bernie and Elizabeth populists and Tulsi as primarily a progressive, but all three as a blend of both populist and progressive. She notes the angst among progressives over Bernie’s reluctance to take on the political class. Tulsi’s calling out the political elites (e.g. the DNC) is the essence of progressivism. She notes that Elizabeth is in with the political elites while Tulsi has taken on these elites. Bernie isn’t in with them but won’t call them out.
Kim suggests that many who voted for Obama in 2012 but Trump in 2016 are populist progressives. Many on the right saw Trump as the Molotov cocktail who would take down the political system, a means of giving the finger to the political elites. This is why we cannot run another run-of-the-mill establishment candidate like Joe Biden. She also states that Tulsi Gabbard is the most progressive candidate running.
Observing that there are issues which are neither populist nor progressive, such as immigration reform, abortion, and gun control, Kim closes with the reminder that we want both: economic reform and political reform -- and should laser beam focus on those ends.
Of course everything Kim Iversen says is open to disagreement, as are her selected definitions.
Comments
I Like This Format. Thank You For the Recap
I don't think I want to watch the video, but your commentary is compelling and orienting. Synthesis from the content put up for discussion; it's a great format for an essay about a video.
I'm a fan of Tulsi, too.
Thanks for sharing.
“Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” ~ Sun Tzu
It basically follows the old "book report" format
, so maybe that's why we're comfortable with it -- familiarity.
Lately I prefer getting my information from video and audio sources but am aware that many do not share that preference, so I tried to put what I could in writing, albeit imperfectly. Glad you liked it.
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
Yea, It Really Felt Like That - It's an Honest Expression, and
if well done, we'll either watch the video or catch the parts that the OP thought was important. Sometimes the simplest way is the best way.
I'm in the same boat, watching a bunch of amazing presentations on heavy, heavy issues and topics (motor learning, philosophy, electric/plasma universe, consciousness, and many other deep things) and I find it hard to share in total or as a presentation of the ideas due to the length of the original content.
I thought doing a breakdown on a large scale would be a complex project. Your post here cured me of that. I might start some YouTube reports - book reports on YouTube videos - there are some very intelligent ideas and interesting philosophical discussions on the YouTube these days, and they make some startling salient points.
Time to distill that down to the essence of my take and share it, I think... thanks again.
“Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” ~ Sun Tzu
What you're watching online
is one of the best uses, imho, of the internet. We can broaden our horizons, learn so much that we wouldn't encounter elsewhere. But unless you've got a strong, retentive mind or can type really fast, the book report approach does entail a lot of pauses for getting it all down. But your idea is generous and totally worthwhile -- sharing the wealth, so to speak. Bring it here! Or give us a link.
Even if you don't share it, it's a good way to keep the highlights for your own reference. Good luck with it, @k9disc!
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
War and diplomacy
The essence of diplomacy is nuance and exchange: getting something of value in return for something else of value.
The essence of war is bludgeoning, destruction and death. No nuance there.
This is why a thoughtful leader will choose words and stances carefully when doing diplomacy. Such an approach is Tulsi's approach. Mr. Trump, while effective, is the proverbial bull in the China shop. Tulsi is unafraid to make bold distinctions about her policies when called for. I do not see this as the kind of Kamala Harris pandering, nor the somewhat less overt Warren pandering.
Populism and Progressiveism
My grandfather was an early organizer for the Minnesota Farmer-Labor Party in the 1920s. My mother's political views mirrored his. These views were about as historically pure Populism as is possible. The most successful Populists were the folks who dreamed up the Non-Partisan League in North Dakota. They took over their government in 1916. The Minnesota Non-Partisan League was trying to catch up when WW I broke out. In the War-Fever repression (Citizens League) that followed, the leadership of the Minnesota NPL was arrested and jailed. The Farmer-Labor Party grew out the ashes of that incredible setback combined with the agricultural depression that began in 1921. Populism!
Minnesota also had serious Progressive movement. Teddy Roosevelt was wildly popular—he gave his "Speak softly and carry a big stick" speech at the 1901 Minnesota state fair. The real guiding light of Midwest Progressiveism was Wisconsin Senator and Governor Robert La Follette. He was also beloved in Minnesota. He would give three hour speeches and when he finished, the crowd would chant for more. If he had a pet project, it was education.
In Madison, the big UW campus is a short stroll from the Capital building. No citizen of the state should ever be more than 50 miles from a branch campus, decreed La Follette. Everyone should be able to access the best thinking of the day from cheese making to city planning. In its heyday, the UW campus was a model for the great land-grant universities of the Midwest. But when it came to subjects like economics, the Populists and Progressives were on the same page.
Anyway, this Populist / Progressive subject has been a passion my whole adult life. My shortest description has become "A Populist is someone who directs his political guns at the organization of the communities' necessary work. A Progressive is a Populist with an enlightened university education."
@Jonathan Larson, your ancestry epitomizes
, your ancestry epitomizes my far-off ideal of how democracy could and should operate in America. My family was nothing like yours, but I got a taste of it, a sense of what was once organically real and entirely possible within our culture, from visits with some of my school friends. I saw my friends’ parents being vocal about local politics and taking part in it, actively supporting labor unions, protesting inequality and war, petitioning the government for democratic, humanistic reforms. During the too-brief folk revival moment of the early Sixties, I encountered a cultural history I’d never dreamed of in the solidarity of the working class as encouraged and celebrated by the songs of Woody Guthrie, Pete Seeger, Malvina Reynolds, the Weavers, and then Joan Baez, early Dylan, etc. It was one huge eye-opener and a lifelong wistfulness for the kind of family you grew up in and the worldview they represent. When I reached voting age, I registered Democrat on the assumption that the Democratic Party upheld these people-oriented values. And yes, I began to notice that many of the most comfortably radical people of my generation were those who hailed from the Midwest.
Technology, and particularly electronic communication, would have changed the way we do things, regardless, but the culture we’re currently living in is a far cry from your ancestry and my youthful discovery. It has been deliberately determined by political decisions made in the 80s, 90s, 2000s, and ongoing today. Among the worst changes were those allowing corporate incursion into government functions, media consolidation, international trade undermining national sovereignty, campaign finance changes, and broad-based incarceration. The basic balance of the world you and I knew has been upended, and the biggest, most basic difference is that no longer are average, everyday Americans – or, as you point out, communities -- relevant to the conduct and purpose of our government.
Bernie Sanders’ momentous decision to run for president as a “socialist” feels like the most politically hopeful consciousness change in recent decades, as it has reawakened our native populism. He woke us up to who we started out to be, although the corporatists are doing everything they can to put the genie back in the bottle, primarily through fear-inducing labels like "socialism." Tulsi is taking what Bernie started one step further, and the Iversen via difference.wiki message helped me to see that the step she took was that of true progressivism – exposing and resisting systematic political corruption. Bernie’s decision took courage, but hers is almost a form of self-sacrifice. I guess we could say the same of Chelsea Manning and Julian Assange. TPTB will not tolerate having their modus operandi exposed.
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
Double kudos to you, Laurel
First, on mentioning the folk revival of the late 50s and early 60s. I was part of that generation but it never caught hold with me either intellectually or emotionally--perhaps due to my too thick reptilian skin and/or thick skull--until Bernie came along. And just like the song "Along Came Jones", Bernie lit my fire. I remember that era well.
Secondly, your assessment of Tulsi of an evolutionary stage superseding Bernie's is absolutely the soul of the difference between the two of them. Tulsi is Bernie with guts and somewhat less emotional ties to wrongs of the past. But Tulsi does realize the wrongs of the past and is willing to face them. Can anyone tell me who else does?
@Alligator Ed ... lol ... "and then
... lol ... "and then, and then, and then ??"
A rich time it was, Ed. Yes, it must have been kismet that Tulsi should sacrifice her stellar place in the DNC to protest their cheating Bernie and then go on to take Bernie's message even higher than he could have imagined. You can't make this stuff up.
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
This
Today 50 GM plants walked off the job because the unions couldn't get GM to offer more in benefits. (This blows ByeDone's ''unions love their health insurance cuz they worked hard for it" out of the water)
But I'm seeing people denigrate the unions because they add to the cost of items. The assault on unions has been going on for decades and it's paid off. Same with taxing the large corporations and having regulations on companies so they won't pollute our environment. And lots of young people want the banks to control social security because they have been told it's going broke. People are bombarded with propaganda daily because it works. Getting people to think against their best interests is only going to see the government giving even more to the rich and corporations because people are giving them permission to do so.
BTW. CEOs make over 200% more than their workers and people think that's okay. Uber and Lyft don't want to pay people more plus benefits to drive for them and people don't want them to become employees because it'd interfere with people choosing when they drive. But they were fine with the uber CEO buying a $70 million house. If people have to rely on government programs to live cuz they work at Walmart or Amazon they should find a different job... instead of insisting both companies pay a living wage. That congress hasn't cracked down on this corporate welfare programs and made them do it or at least contribute to the programs just show how captured our government is.
Good comments both of you!
Incredibly depressing stuff,
. Breaking through the solid wall of brainwashing is going to be a near-insurmountable task but it has to be done. Or ... eventually Frank Zappa's prediction comes true ...
... and what then?
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
Differences between Progressivism, Populism and Socialism
I'd say that both populism and progressivism as they've manifested themselves historically and today seek reformist economic and political solutions within a capitalist economic framework whereas socialism has sought and now seeks to fundamentally transform that unfair and oppressive framework. Of course, socialism can carry the characteristics of different levels and forms of authoritarianism or democratization. That's the best I can do before I have my morning coffee.
These articles might be helpful (although I'd quibble with some of the points made):
https://www.differencebetween.com/difference-between-populism-and-vs-pro...
http://www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/politics/difference-betwe...
Wally, you do quite well even absent coffee
This comment does not reference your two citations, neither of which seemed, shall we say, appetizing. But your description of the oppositely inspired but merged reality of two approaches, striving for a common goal yet coming at the goal from opposite direction. Regulating capitalism is the approach of a type of progressivism, one which accepts the operation of capitalism as a necessity. The obverse is the view of socialism which permits capitalism to exist under stricter regulation.
I'll take my coffee black, Wally
Thanks for asking. Cheers
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBHhT2rnIyM]
One quibble with your take AE
I'd just throw in the addendum at the end: while nationlizing essential services such as health care and ensuring the equitable and fair distribution of basic commodities such as energy. Those service and commodities can and should be expanded, too.
How is Tulsi's position
on abortion "inconclusive" if she is merely stating that she supports the Roe decision? Seems entirely consistent with a liberal/progressive pov on allowing women the right to choose up to the 3d trimester, which is the cutoff beyond which Roe states governments can act to heavily regulate the procedure.
On guns, I'm not aware of any major Dem pol advocating for a confiscation of ALL guns, just a few proposals like from Beto recently to ban all semi-automatic assault rifles. So Tulsi failing to call for a complete ban on all guns doesn't make her RW -- it just puts her in the same boat as all other pols. I understand she not only backs comprehensive pre-purchase background checks, but also a federal ban on assault rifles and high-capacity magazines -- which makes her squarely in the progressive camp on gun control issues.
On her interview with Dubin, my main objection was that she too often failed to call him out on the consistent RW framing of his questions. There was an awful Dubin question offered to suggest liberals weren't patriotic, always talking negatively about the country (except, he noted flatteringly, not Tulsi), where she needed to object but didn't. She is rightly concerned about powerful entities like Google suppressing speech, but didn't appreciate that dissent does not make one unpatriotic and questioning a dissenter's patriotism is a well-known American tradition which also effectively stifles free speech.
Will now go to view the Iversen piece and see whether she comments on the RW framing of issues by Dubin that got little pushback by Tulsi, or whether Iversen is just offering commentary on Tulsi's positions.
Did Tulsi stand and applaud
. . . when Trump took his jabs at socialism during his most recent state of the union address?
Did anybody aside from Bernie stay seated?
I really don't know and after searching the internet for about 10 minutes couldn't come up with the answer.
I also saw Tulsi sometime back being repeatedly asked by Cenk Uygar on TYT whether or not she considers herself a progressive but then responds simply "yes" after Cenk corners her. I guess she decided to take the other route with Dave Rubin. Politics heh?
Don't know
whether or not she stood but I do know she stood strong when leaving the DNC over its primary rigging actions and when she stood for Bernie in the 2016 contest. Compared to these important instances of publicly standing for what is right, the reaction to DT's remarks is relatively minor stuff making for interesting and amusing conversation on the lefty boards.
On the political labeling, it's clear Tulsi doesn't like them, finds them misleading and constrictive, and the Iversen commentary indicates how labels can be misunderstood. Russiagate-promoter Cenk himself probably labels himself a progressive, not that I care much (so of course, laughably, did Hillary). He strikes me more as a careerist and establishment guy, more pragmatist than progressive. I'd rec to Tulsi that instead of bobbing and weaving, she should just state she is mainly a progressive on most issues, but fiercely independent in her thinking in some other areas, both of which happen to be true but which make her difficult to easily pigeonhole.
Thank you,
,
for stating this so well. I hope your clear expression of this important fact, that the American people aren't pigeon-holed in their thinking, is made more and more obvious during this election year. Please keep writing it!
who'd said:
"label me, you negate me!" i agree.
as for gun bans: that's an old liberal trope, and a silly one at that, given there are already 11 gazillion guns in amerika. assault rifles: i sorta remember a ban on automatics, but a person could buy a weapon and get a little gizmo to make it an automatic and install it in three minutes flat.
the thing that we should be talking about is why this is such a violent nation, why are so many ready to play urban commandos, why do so many want revenge against other identity groups, and so on. plus the psychological subtexts: were shooters bullied and/or beaten by authoritarian parents? were they bullied unimaginably at school? (yes, i'm thinking columbine). military madness, militarized po-po, the beat goes on.
i'd have to say in the bits i watched of miz gabbard's interview: no, tulsi, all USians did not come together after 9/11 (as a family, was it?). there still remain suspect classes and suspect skin pigmentations.
Second the motion
I still can't figure out why TYT went out of their way
I still can't figure out why TYT went out of their way to attack Tulsi out of nowhere. Kasperian even tried to associate Tulsi with neo-Nazis. The attack seemed too much like a TOP move of some sort.
I wouldn't be surprised
if TYT, TOP, and the DNC all took their talking points from the same high-up source(s).
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
Remember, in 2016
Cenk and TYT pivoted to Hillary shortly after the infamous Ides of March purging of Bernie supporters at DKos.
"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
Yes,
, starting in 2016 I began noticing how a number of so-called liberal groups, spokespersons, organizations and even websites and webforums will make identical changes at about the same time, so it certainly feels like an across the board change. You don't have to be a full-fledged conspiracy theorist to get a sense that someone(s) must be pulling the strings somewhere. A few months ago in a discussion here about Bernie's 2016 capitulation, someone mentioned how in spring 2016 the Dems rather suddenly went all-out Hillary, so even though the primary was not over, it in fact was. The most momentous change occurred after Obama called certain key figures from the campaigns, including Bernie, into his office for discussions.
I wish just once someone in power would break down and open up about how, exactly, this works. And maybe name a few names. But this much we know -- the people are not in on it, and to that extent, democracy is, well, just a 9-letter word.
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
Maybe it had something to do
. . . with noticing that the path to Bernie's victory was pretty much non-existent after a certain time given successive primary results? I've noted elsewhere that I gave up hope of him getting the nomination shortly after the New York primary although I don't recall after which primary I called it quits.
I didn't jump on anyone's bandwagon and wound up voting Green but I didn't wait until the convention nor have I ever considered Bernie's support for she-whose-name-I-shall-not-speak to be a capitulation or a betrayal. I supported his campaign up front knowing full well he had signed an honor bound agreement to support the Democratic nominee. Please be aware that Tulsi has done the same.
Generally agreed,
, but you do know that the MSM was all-out Hillary, ignored Bernie, and those primary results were themselves rigged? I heard countless complaints from Democratic voters who discovered too late that their registration had been switched, usually to Republican. And other, more technical stuff. There was a lawsuit over it (the Becks). And I'll never forget the Nevada Primary, Barbara Boxer's contempt for Bernie voters, and the outright lies told about it by the MSM.
Just stinking with corruption, open, blatant corruption.
And yes I know that Dem candidates have to sign away their firstborn to run, but why the hell did Bernie have to go all Russiagate on us? Surely they didn't make him sign away his post-election opinions? I still love him, mind you, just not as much, and I'll always honor him for how he has spent his life. I'll take him over anyone but Tulsi (who won't stand a chance until 2424 anyway).
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
Tulsi will have a better chance in 2028 if Bernie wins in 2020
Or maybe sooner if she plays her cards right.
In any event, as I've frequently said before I'm looking at the primaries up to and including Super Tuesday as tantamount to the Battle of Stalingrad. If Bernie doesn't pull off a miracle, then just fuhgedaboudit, we're all phluckled.
We know now,
thanks to wikileaks and confirmed by Donna Brazile in her book, that Hillary bought the 2016 nomination years in advance. The Clintons and the DNC had it all planned out to make sure that she would be the Dem nominee and then go on to become POTUS.
That included working with the corporate media, rigging the primary in numerous ways, using superdelegates, and getting Trump nominated ("pied piper strategy").
Bernie's popularity was a wrinkle they did not expect. They already knew that the primary was just a sham, providing cover for their shenanigans. No one except Hillary was going to get the nomination. So at a certain point in the primary season, they decided to drop the hammer and end it.
"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
So it's useless to support any candidate or do anything
. . . because "they" will always drop the hammer (and they have more than one).
Edit/add: Unless the other candidate is a crummy game show host named Donald Trump who can't get hammered. If they have all that power, why couldn't they beat a schlemiel like him?
Again, I'll wait until March 3rd before I decide to find something else to do.
BTW, who are "they" backing to win the Democratic nomination? Obviously, "they" will have their way. Which way? Warren? Biden? Why not Hillary? It's all rigged so you can spare me the trouble of trying to figure it out for myself.
No,
that's not what I said, nor is it what I believe.
I was describing what took place in 2016. My comment was specifically addressed to what you stated in your comment regarding the motive behind the media's pivot to Hillary during the 2016 primary season. (It's the part I quoted at the bottom of my previous comment.)
With regard to who "they" are backing this time, I'm not one of "them", so I don't know whether the Dem PTB and their donors have picked a chosen one yet, or who it might be. We've had discussions here about possible in-fighting among various factions of the Dem Party, and that seems plausible to me. It could be that they're still at the "anyone but Bernie or Tulsi" stage.
In any case, I don't believe either the DNC or the oligarchy are all powerful. They're working against the flow and energy of human evolution, and to me that means they're in a weak position.
"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
So we sorta agree
I'd add that the 1% is at the weakest they've ever been since the 1930s because:
1. It's DP wing (which as you note is fractured) has out thought themselves and are shooting each other in a crossfire which might enable Bernie to win at least two and maybe three of the first four primaries (which appears likely given current polling) plus California (Emerson poll) and a good number of other states on Super Tuesday, especially if he does well in the earlier four states.
2. The RP wing, even though it has largely coalesced aroung Trump, still have quite a few Obama-Trump supporters who it seems only Bernie can swing back (there've been studies indicating this so I'm not just talking through my posterior orifice).
3. Bernie clearly does best among independent voters who can vote in some primaries.
4. If Bernie pulls off the miracle of winning the nomination, most polls show him beating Trump.
On the other hand, if Bernie can't pull it off, I'm sorry but I really do think we are totally phluckeled beyond redemption coz:
1. Mother Nature.
2. Trump, then Pence, then . . .
Otherwise, I think candidates can be independent actors, not mere pawns of the class interests or segments of the 1% to whom they are beholden. Look at Castro. Clearly in the Obama camp but then he goes rogue.
Tulsi at the 2019 SOTU
I used DuckDuckGo (no more googling for me), and came up with this interesting piece describing the Dem candidates' actions and reactions during the 2019 SOTU address.
https://www.rollcall.com/news/congress/how-the-2020-democrats-reacted-to...
According to the article, Tulsi Gabbard sat in the very back row of the chamber, and didn't seem to be paying much attention to Trump's speech, instead looking at her phone for much of it.
The article described what several of the Dem candidates did for the "no socialism ever!" bit, but apparently no one was looking in Tulsi's direction at that moment. I think they must've been focused on Bernie and the other *ahem* "top tier" candidates. We may never know the answer to your question.
"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
Thanks (and WFP endorsement of Warren)
I'm debating with myself at this point if anything political that we do really matters given that Warren got the Working Families Party endorsement. In 2015, WFP released the results of the online rank and file membership vote: 87% for Sanders. Of course, this time around it was rigged with the leadership vote weighted 50-50 equal with the rank-and-file vote. They are not releasing the actual vote counts, only claiming that Warren won with 61% of the incredibly unevenly combined weighted vote. More Superdelegates crap. WFP’s national director Maurice Mitchell noted "For there to be one true vote, and to maintain the nature of secret ballot, all of that went into the back end." I can't believe he said that, but par for the course I guess. I was a member of the WFP but emailed them back that I will never ever again vote for any candidate they endorse.
Lol, how obvious of them,
. They're becoming predictable. Okay, now we know, if we didn't already, that the primary is and will remain rigged. We also know, if we didn't already, that Warren's their girl, now that Tulsi delivered the knockout punch to Kamala and Biden's no longer able. We also know why Warren decided to take money from anyone; her hand's out, it's open, and like Hillary before her, she's for sale. And as someone who gets a lot of mail from the Bernie campaign, I am also convinced he is being subtly sabotaged from within his own campaign which is being run by a former CAP boy.
So there is proof galore that they're working their butts off to keep Bernie and Tulsi out. Top priority. They would settle for Trump over Bernie because at least he's not a genuine populist, but what they really want is a reliable Hillary-style puppet who will get the job done. They have an agenda and probably a time-frame.
And the best thing we know is that the PTB -- neoliberal corporatists abetted by neocon warmongers -- are afraid of we the people. Truly, truly, truly, their final enemy is us, the masses, the unwashed and unchosen.
And we know that our best hope is to circumvent the MSM and use indy media and what's left of social media to reach out to our fellow Americans of all persuasions to band together to overthrow this gigantic insect that is perched on our back, sucking our blood. It's time for clever, imaginative, adaptive, guerilla warfare. Peacetime, of course.
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
Don't be so sure Warren's "their" girl
Biden is still waaaay ahead in aggregate polling.
Many of us still believe that Warren is largely in it just to split the "progressive" (ahem) vote so that Biden wins (or something worse as Alligator Ed has often averred to). I can also see a Biden-Warren ticket as a distinct possiblity (I really doubt that a capitalist-down-to-her-bones candicate would ever accept such an offer from socialist Bernie).
The WFP is not the be all and end all of what comes of the primaries. It's pretty obvious that the majority of the WFP who voted, voted for Bernie. Nobody said that this would be easy or that the good-for-nothings wouldn't get more and more cranked up as the campaign progresses.
[video:https://preview.redd.it/nvae03oxmdn31.gif?format=mp4&s=8d772c970e1a060c5...
A new poll came out the other day with Bernie tied with Biden for the lead in California. Bernie also leads in NM, NH and is statistically tied with Biden in IA. I think state polls are generally more valid than national polls.
There are a lot of former CAP people who have been very hostile to CAP for years now including Lee Fang and Zaid Jilani to name just two off the top of my head. Are you going to condemn Tulsi for having been hostile to gays some years back. I think not. Nor do I.
Amen to all your other points.
Edit (added or someting worse . . . )
Having now
seen the first half of the Iversen commentary (the latter part on progressives vs populists doesn't interest me), I wasn't entirely convinced by Iversen's explanation for why Tulsi didn't push back on the patriotism question (among other horribles by Dubin). She sounded a bit too cheerleader for Tulsi, rather than objective reporter.
Btw, only recently did I learn that Iversen is part Vietnamese (1/4 or 1/2). Could have fooled me.
Iverson is half Viet Namese
on her maternal side and caucasian on the paternal side. She is proud of her heritage, lives in L.A., near Little Saigon, which is where her mother lives. Kim is very intelligent. Her views, according to my personal analysis, are that she is just to the left of Tim Pool.
creating your own partial transcript
is sincerely awesome; my RAM is so crap that i'd have had to stop the video every ten words.
oddly, i'd thought that tulsi might have been on it, but i admit i'd found iverson (whoever she is) somewhat jejeune in her framing, including her beliefs that the other D candidates 'hate this country', (is that who she'd meant by 'or the perception that the Left hates this country'? i lost track), as well as her claim/belief that 'anyone who joins the military obviously loves this country' (or close).
she noted that some bitch about her beliefs that regime change ops are wasteful uses of the huge military budget, but 'if people are bombing you, etc.' (whats up with that?) as for ms. gabbard and 'talking to dictators', i assume she'd meant assad? if so, of course he's not a dictator, but after her visit to syria, some of her advocates noted that she was 'practically forced into calling him a dictator who'd gassed his people'. she may have bak off that if she'd seen the suppressed OPCW report that 'it was likley the white helmets' who'd staged that', and of course it clearly was.
as for no regime change, i find that rather ironic when it's framed with these lies and smears in the case of the 'maduro regime':
ms. gabbard does say that she's a hawk on 'the war on terror', whatever that means in terms of War, but some say she voted Nay for trump's military budget, as some claim about bernie sanders. but i did dig up these links this morning, fwiw:
Tulsi Gabbard voted for Trump’s military budget increase last year. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/115-2018/h405?fbclid=IwAR1GB9bwfe...
She also voted for sanctions in Iran, voted against withdrawl in Syria and Iraq and also voted for 2 military budget increases under Obama. http://thescore.peaceactionwest.org/votes/rep-tulsi-gabbard
miz gabbard is suing google?
fuck, yeah! what would be subversive is suing the DNC (DLC?) for continually changing the polling metrics (if i'd understood gulfgal) as to who WILL or won't be included in the 'debates'.
'unique donors' is a phrase that may or may not be meaningless; depending...
wouldn't it be nice to live in a democracy™? even a representative democracy? hello, D super-delegates, as well.
Your umbrage is reasonable
But we must remember the Judicial Verdict recognizing the sanctity of tobacco smoke in back rooms.
as in:
chi-town: Vote early, vote often? great word 'umbrage' sir gator of the cypress swamp; another i'd forgotten.
I don't think Warren is a populist.
She's an elitist who sometimes uses her reason, intelligence, and common sense. As opposed to the general run of elitists up in D.C., who serve insane people (the 1%) and see no problem with their insanity.
IOW, the fact that Warren supports some rules of the road for financiers, as opposed to the Wild West that we've had since 1999, hardly makes her a populist. Neither does the fact that she doesn't believe that the extremely rich should be able to criminally defraud the poor without consequence for them or recourse for their victims. If those things are the provenance of populists, then only populists believe in civilization.
That's assuming Warren is sincere.
"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 agree,
. Iversen may have been placing Bernie and EW in the populist category based on their rhetoric and who they're playing to, Bernie's rhetoric being a sincere statement of his values and beliefs, and Elizabeth's not so much.
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