@The Voice In the Wilderness and the fact that she being primaried and polling was not great for her in Hawaii makes it a prudent move.

#1.1.1
I'm saddened to see this. I think we are losing a valuable representative.
She is probably sickened by Pelosi and the other corporate shills.
But we need more Representatives like Tulsi, not fewer.

@Wally
If true.

#2.1.1

From the Fox Business News Report:

Tulsi Gabbard . . . was given a hero's welcome at a meeting with Wall Street executives and potential donors on Wednesday evening in New York City that took place at Anthony Scaramucci’s Hunt and Fish Club restaurant. . .

Scaramucci, known as the "Mooch," is a hedge fund salesman and short-lived communications director for the Trump administration before flaming out and transforming himself into a fierce Trump critic. While he wasn't in attendance, according to people with direct knowledge of the event, about two dozen Wall Street executives sat for the off-the-record meeting with Gabbard that was hosted by Robert Wolf, himself a prominent Wall Street Democrat (golfing buddy of former President Barack Obama) and past chief of Swiss bank UBS' U.S. operations.

Wolf now runs investment advisory firm 32 Advisors and does political consulting, the latter with Scaramucci. He is also a FOX Business contributor.

@Wally

I'm even getting pulled into this. From ignoring it completely, to wanting to see Tulsi and Bernie give ulcers to the death eaters running this political kabuki show.

Whiplash, she's a'coming. I've got my neck brace, what about you?

#2.1.2

I did think you were sarcastically suggesting otherwise but was interested in soliciting other takes.

But now I'm not so sure one way or the other.

I thought I could take some time off from paying attention and getting so wrapped up in politics, but there ya go. That whiplash story the other day from Anja was prophetic.

@snoopydawg
trying to influence the 2016 election. It was called Correct the Record and it was working for Hillary.

#3.3.2

it was an ad agency that posts ads on various subjects. And over 60% of the ads they posted to FB were placed after the election. It seems a very strange way to try to influence the election by placing most of their ads after it was decided don't you think? BTW... the agency had nothing to do with the Russian government. A judge ruled that Mueller did not make his case that it was and ordered him to stop saying that.

The Intelligence agencies you named all have stated there was Russian interference.

If you mean that all 17 intelligence agencies agreed that Russia interfered with the election that too is bogus beyond all measures. 3 people from those agencies said Russia did the deed. But they only said that they believed that they did and that they was high probability that they did. No evidence was ever shown that Russia did that.

You might want to search this site for its coverage of the Russian propaganda nonsense. Put Russia in the search bar and see how we have debunked this from the get go.

The reason both parties have swallowed this crap is to restart the Cold War with Russia. We have been putting the military into many countries that surround Russia and was one of the reasons we removed Ukraine's Russian friendly president and installed our own puppet. And that is why we are selling weapons to Ukraine. BTW. Obama did not want those weapons going there because of the increased tensions it would cause with Russia. But congress just waited him out.

@snoopydawg
at moderate. This was the very agency that had the mandate AND the means to protect America from foreign threats such as these.

It's obvious even these professional spooks were foiled by the cute puppy pics.

#3.3.2

it was an ad agency that posts ads on various subjects. And over 60% of the ads they posted to FB were placed after the election. It seems a very strange way to try to influence the election by placing most of their ads after it was decided don't you think? BTW... the agency had nothing to do with the Russian government. A judge ruled that Mueller did not make his case that it was and ordered him to stop saying that.

The Intelligence agencies you named all have stated there was Russian interference.

If you mean that all 17 intelligence agencies agreed that Russia interfered with the election that too is bogus beyond all measures. 3 people from those agencies said Russia did the deed. But they only said that they believed that they did and that they was high probability that they did. No evidence was ever shown that Russia did that.

You might want to search this site for its coverage of the Russian propaganda nonsense. Put Russia in the search bar and see how we have debunked this from the get go.

The reason both parties have swallowed this crap is to restart the Cold War with Russia. We have been putting the military into many countries that surround Russia and was one of the reasons we removed Ukraine's Russian friendly president and installed our own puppet. And that is why we are selling weapons to Ukraine. BTW. Obama did not want those weapons going there because of the increased tensions it would cause with Russia. But congress just waited him out.

@snoopydawg @snoopydawg but I find it tremendously insulting to the voters to insinuate that so many would be convinced by a relatively few Russian Facebook ads that it changed the course of the election.

Now if we want to talk about election rigging, perhaps we should talk about the 2016 primary. Both Donna Brazille and Elizabeth Warren said that it was rigged and the DNC emails showed that they intended to rig it. That is far more evidence than what we have about Russian troll farms actually changing the course of the election.

Also, Hillary refused to campaign in the Midwest where she lost both Michigan and Wisconsin. The queen of warmongering has only herself to blame for that.

#3.3.2

it was an ad agency that posts ads on various subjects. And over 60% of the ads they posted to FB were placed after the election. It seems a very strange way to try to influence the election by placing most of their ads after it was decided don't you think? BTW... the agency had nothing to do with the Russian government. A judge ruled that Mueller did not make his case that it was and ordered him to stop saying that.

The Intelligence agencies you named all have stated there was Russian interference.

If you mean that all 17 intelligence agencies agreed that Russia interfered with the election that too is bogus beyond all measures. 3 people from those agencies said Russia did the deed. But they only said that they believed that they did and that they was high probability that they did. No evidence was ever shown that Russia did that.

You might want to search this site for its coverage of the Russian propaganda nonsense. Put Russia in the search bar and see how we have debunked this from the get go.

The reason both parties have swallowed this crap is to restart the Cold War with Russia. We have been putting the military into many countries that surround Russia and was one of the reasons we removed Ukraine's Russian friendly president and installed our own puppet. And that is why we are selling weapons to Ukraine. BTW. Obama did not want those weapons going there because of the increased tensions it would cause with Russia. But congress just waited him out.

@UntimelyRippd

#3.3.2
Just as we interfere with the politics of every nation, everywhere, including Russia, you can be certain that the Russian government is continually working through various means to effect in our politics any outcomes that suit their own purposes.

You're also correct that there is disagreement about just how significant their effect was. Morons, for example, insist that somehow the minuscule amount of money they spent somehow overwhelmed the literally billions of dollars spent by our two major political parties; that if only not for those cunning slavs, HRC would have won. The implication, I would suggest, would be that we ought to invite a merger with Russia, since their politicians must be far, far more competent than our own, if they can be so much more efficient and effective with their resources.

Except, of course, that this is nonsense. HRC lost because she's one of the most hated people in America AND she's a staggeringly incompetent politician who hires staggeringly incompetent campaign staff. If she'd been running against anyone but Trump, she'd have lost the popular vote as well, and if she'd been running against a woman she would have been destroyed, because the only thing that shored up her popular vote was the defection to her of a few million Republican women -- all of whom voted GOP downballot.

Regardless, the second-most important thing to grasp about whatever efforts "the Russians" made as a matter of political policy, as opposed to, you know, just trying to make a ruble, is that we know nothing about their particular motivations, and the claim that they were doing it because "Trump is Putin's puppet" or any such thing is an evidence-free blob of paranoid bunk. The more straightforward explanation -- but still purely speculative -- is that they just wanted to create as much chaos and confusion as possible in the American political system.

However, the most important thing to grasp about the hysteria over Russian interference is this: Our electoral system was and is hopelessly corrupt without any nefarious outside influence. The great threats to our society come, not from nanoscale internet ratfuckeries perpetrated by the Russians (or any other nation), but from our own political establishment. The Russians didn't gerrymander Wisconsin into permanent GOP legislative majorities. The Russians didn't disenfranchise millions of voters all over America -- neither in our primaries, nor in the general. The Russians didn't foist on us a system of unaccountable electronic balloting, in which nobody with any sense has a fragment of faith. The Russians didn't transform our judiciary into a battleground between agents of the two dominant parties. The Russians didn't decide that our Constitution defines corporations as people, enjoying all the same political rights as, you know, people. The Russians didn't plan and implement our duopoly, in which the interests and opinions of the mass of the electorate are simply not represented on the ballot -- which is why, in particular, urban African Americans didn't bother to turn out and vote, leading to HRC's ridiculous failures in Wisconsin and Michigan.

Finally, I'll note that anybody who, in support of any argument, cites as fact the publicly-stated conclusions of our intelligence agencies, is comically naive. There is exactly and only one truth that you can generally infer from any statement issued by any given American intelligence agency: That, in pursuit of its own extra-judicial, extra-legislative, extra-constitutional agenda, the agency in question wants people to believe the information in the statement. The statement itself might be true, or it might be false, or it might be a mishmash of truth and falsity; but there is no way to know which, and no reason to give any credit to it. It is non-information. I'm sorry if you don't yet realize this.

@UntimelyRippd
CIA Flashback:

William Casey, CIA Director 1981-1987: “We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.”

#3.3.2
Just as we interfere with the politics of every nation, everywhere, including Russia, you can be certain that the Russian government is continually working through various means to effect in our politics any outcomes that suit their own purposes.

You're also correct that there is disagreement about just how significant their effect was. Morons, for example, insist that somehow the minuscule amount of money they spent somehow overwhelmed the literally billions of dollars spent by our two major political parties; that if only not for those cunning slavs, HRC would have won. The implication, I would suggest, would be that we ought to invite a merger with Russia, since their politicians must be far, far more competent than our own, if they can be so much more efficient and effective with their resources.

Except, of course, that this is nonsense. HRC lost because she's one of the most hated people in America AND she's a staggeringly incompetent politician who hires staggeringly incompetent campaign staff. If she'd been running against anyone but Trump, she'd have lost the popular vote as well, and if she'd been running against a woman she would have been destroyed, because the only thing that shored up her popular vote was the defection to her of a few million Republican women -- all of whom voted GOP downballot.

Regardless, the second-most important thing to grasp about whatever efforts "the Russians" made as a matter of political policy, as opposed to, you know, just trying to make a ruble, is that we know nothing about their particular motivations, and the claim that they were doing it because "Trump is Putin's puppet" or any such thing is an evidence-free blob of paranoid bunk. The more straightforward explanation -- but still purely speculative -- is that they just wanted to create as much chaos and confusion as possible in the American political system.

However, the most important thing to grasp about the hysteria over Russian interference is this: Our electoral system was and is hopelessly corrupt without any nefarious outside influence. The great threats to our society come, not from nanoscale internet ratfuckeries perpetrated by the Russians (or any other nation), but from our own political establishment. The Russians didn't gerrymander Wisconsin into permanent GOP legislative majorities. The Russians didn't disenfranchise millions of voters all over America -- neither in our primaries, nor in the general. The Russians didn't foist on us a system of unaccountable electronic balloting, in which nobody with any sense has a fragment of faith. The Russians didn't transform our judiciary into a battleground between agents of the two dominant parties. The Russians didn't decide that our Constitution defines corporations as people, enjoying all the same political rights as, you know, people. The Russians didn't plan and implement our duopoly, in which the interests and opinions of the mass of the electorate are simply not represented on the ballot -- which is why, in particular, urban African Americans didn't bother to turn out and vote, leading to HRC's ridiculous failures in Wisconsin and Michigan.

Finally, I'll note that anybody who, in support of any argument, cites as fact the publicly-stated conclusions of our intelligence agencies, is comically naive. There is exactly and only one truth that you can generally infer from any statement issued by any given American intelligence agency: That, in pursuit of its own extra-judicial, extra-legislative, extra-constitutional agenda, the agency in question wants people to believe the information in the statement. The statement itself might be true, or it might be false, or it might be a mishmash of truth and falsity; but there is no way to know which, and no reason to give any credit to it. It is non-information. I'm sorry if you don't yet realize this.

@UntimelyRippd

The Russians didn't gerrymander Wisconsin into permanent GOP legislative majorities. The Russians didn't disenfranchise millions of voters all over America -- neither in our primaries, nor in the general. The Russians didn't foist on us a system of unaccountable electronic balloting, in which nobody with any sense has a fragment of faith. The Russians didn't transform our judiciary into a battleground between agents of the two dominant parties. The Russians didn't decide that our Constitution defines corporations as people, enjoying all the same political rights as, you know, people. The Russians didn't plan and implement our duopoly, in which the interests and opinions of the mass of the electorate are simply not represented on the ballot -- which is why, in particular, urban African Americans didn't bother to turn out and vote, leading to HRC's ridiculous failures in Wisconsin and Michigan

.

#3.3.2
Just as we interfere with the politics of every nation, everywhere, including Russia, you can be certain that the Russian government is continually working through various means to effect in our politics any outcomes that suit their own purposes.

You're also correct that there is disagreement about just how significant their effect was. Morons, for example, insist that somehow the minuscule amount of money they spent somehow overwhelmed the literally billions of dollars spent by our two major political parties; that if only not for those cunning slavs, HRC would have won. The implication, I would suggest, would be that we ought to invite a merger with Russia, since their politicians must be far, far more competent than our own, if they can be so much more efficient and effective with their resources.

Except, of course, that this is nonsense. HRC lost because she's one of the most hated people in America AND she's a staggeringly incompetent politician who hires staggeringly incompetent campaign staff. If she'd been running against anyone but Trump, she'd have lost the popular vote as well, and if she'd been running against a woman she would have been destroyed, because the only thing that shored up her popular vote was the defection to her of a few million Republican women -- all of whom voted GOP downballot.

Regardless, the second-most important thing to grasp about whatever efforts "the Russians" made as a matter of political policy, as opposed to, you know, just trying to make a ruble, is that we know nothing about their particular motivations, and the claim that they were doing it because "Trump is Putin's puppet" or any such thing is an evidence-free blob of paranoid bunk. The more straightforward explanation -- but still purely speculative -- is that they just wanted to create as much chaos and confusion as possible in the American political system.

However, the most important thing to grasp about the hysteria over Russian interference is this: Our electoral system was and is hopelessly corrupt without any nefarious outside influence. The great threats to our society come, not from nanoscale internet ratfuckeries perpetrated by the Russians (or any other nation), but from our own political establishment. The Russians didn't gerrymander Wisconsin into permanent GOP legislative majorities. The Russians didn't disenfranchise millions of voters all over America -- neither in our primaries, nor in the general. The Russians didn't foist on us a system of unaccountable electronic balloting, in which nobody with any sense has a fragment of faith. The Russians didn't transform our judiciary into a battleground between agents of the two dominant parties. The Russians didn't decide that our Constitution defines corporations as people, enjoying all the same political rights as, you know, people. The Russians didn't plan and implement our duopoly, in which the interests and opinions of the mass of the electorate are simply not represented on the ballot -- which is why, in particular, urban African Americans didn't bother to turn out and vote, leading to HRC's ridiculous failures in Wisconsin and Michigan.

Finally, I'll note that anybody who, in support of any argument, cites as fact the publicly-stated conclusions of our intelligence agencies, is comically naive. There is exactly and only one truth that you can generally infer from any statement issued by any given American intelligence agency: That, in pursuit of its own extra-judicial, extra-legislative, extra-constitutional agenda, the agency in question wants people to believe the information in the statement. The statement itself might be true, or it might be false, or it might be a mishmash of truth and falsity; but there is no way to know which, and no reason to give any credit to it. It is non-information. I'm sorry if you don't yet realize this.

@UntimelyRippd this is what happened but would like to see your cite:

because the only thing that shored up her popular vote was the defection to her of a few million Republican women -- all of whom voted GOP downballot.

I haven't seen the numbers that break it down on a party + gender basis, but on party alone, Hillary just got what the D nominee usually receives in the presidential, within the usual 6-9% range of defecting Rs.

This also

which is why, in particular, urban African Americans didn't bother to turn out and vote, leading to HRC's ridiculous failures in Wisconsin and Michigan.

No doubt about it, her campaign should have (imo) better anticipated the drop off in AA votes compared to 2008/2012 and worked much harder to GOTV. Not entirely her fault though -- I'd imagine this group felt its great Hope was dashed after eight yrs of Obama producing only pocket Change for them, and so a white woman was going to be any different? And there was no great urgency to show up at the polls as it was a foregone conclusion that she would win after all. No one, including Donald, thought the outcome would be any different.

Other major factor for her loss, in addition to voter suppression by non-Russian forces: as I've heard from one analyst, in WI and MI the % of voters casting a ballot for 3d parties was 3x or so the normal number in a typical presidential election.

Btw, re the USIC, of course they lie. It's in their DNA. Part of the job requirement, at least for the half working in operations and plans. Today I heard an interesting exchange progressive Thom Hartmann had with a well-informed caller who tried to correct him about that Jan 2017 Intel Assessment of Russian chicanery -- TH peddled the usual "all 17 agencies" lie, then when the caller tried to correct him and on other intel lies, Thom cut him off. Not just that, but made a note on air to enter the guy's phone # for future blocking -- Thom thought he was a RW troll.

#3.3.2
Just as we interfere with the politics of every nation, everywhere, including Russia, you can be certain that the Russian government is continually working through various means to effect in our politics any outcomes that suit their own purposes.

You're also correct that there is disagreement about just how significant their effect was. Morons, for example, insist that somehow the minuscule amount of money they spent somehow overwhelmed the literally billions of dollars spent by our two major political parties; that if only not for those cunning slavs, HRC would have won. The implication, I would suggest, would be that we ought to invite a merger with Russia, since their politicians must be far, far more competent than our own, if they can be so much more efficient and effective with their resources.

Except, of course, that this is nonsense. HRC lost because she's one of the most hated people in America AND she's a staggeringly incompetent politician who hires staggeringly incompetent campaign staff. If she'd been running against anyone but Trump, she'd have lost the popular vote as well, and if she'd been running against a woman she would have been destroyed, because the only thing that shored up her popular vote was the defection to her of a few million Republican women -- all of whom voted GOP downballot.

Regardless, the second-most important thing to grasp about whatever efforts "the Russians" made as a matter of political policy, as opposed to, you know, just trying to make a ruble, is that we know nothing about their particular motivations, and the claim that they were doing it because "Trump is Putin's puppet" or any such thing is an evidence-free blob of paranoid bunk. The more straightforward explanation -- but still purely speculative -- is that they just wanted to create as much chaos and confusion as possible in the American political system.

However, the most important thing to grasp about the hysteria over Russian interference is this: Our electoral system was and is hopelessly corrupt without any nefarious outside influence. The great threats to our society come, not from nanoscale internet ratfuckeries perpetrated by the Russians (or any other nation), but from our own political establishment. The Russians didn't gerrymander Wisconsin into permanent GOP legislative majorities. The Russians didn't disenfranchise millions of voters all over America -- neither in our primaries, nor in the general. The Russians didn't foist on us a system of unaccountable electronic balloting, in which nobody with any sense has a fragment of faith. The Russians didn't transform our judiciary into a battleground between agents of the two dominant parties. The Russians didn't decide that our Constitution defines corporations as people, enjoying all the same political rights as, you know, people. The Russians didn't plan and implement our duopoly, in which the interests and opinions of the mass of the electorate are simply not represented on the ballot -- which is why, in particular, urban African Americans didn't bother to turn out and vote, leading to HRC's ridiculous failures in Wisconsin and Michigan.

Finally, I'll note that anybody who, in support of any argument, cites as fact the publicly-stated conclusions of our intelligence agencies, is comically naive. There is exactly and only one truth that you can generally infer from any statement issued by any given American intelligence agency: That, in pursuit of its own extra-judicial, extra-legislative, extra-constitutional agenda, the agency in question wants people to believe the information in the statement. The statement itself might be true, or it might be false, or it might be a mishmash of truth and falsity; but there is no way to know which, and no reason to give any credit to it. It is non-information. I'm sorry if you don't yet realize this.