Just a bit of relaying: Now is NO TIME to give up
Note the comments section, too.
https://www.reddit.com/r/SandersForPresident/comments/fowd41/how_we_are_...
UPDATE: Like the rest of you, I was confused and upset by Tulsi's endorsement of Joe Biden; below, however, is a compelling case for why she did it - and why, perhaps, it might even have been a genuine case of the "5-D chess" we keep hearing about:
https://www.reddit.com/r/tulsi/comments/foip5k/she_wanted_to_go_home/
I still think she might have just fucked up; she certainly did if she thought Biden was "inevitable". That said, this would be the first time she's done so. She deserves better than book-bell-and-candle for one move we don't like.
BACK TO THE BERN: https://www.reddit.com/r/SandersForPresident/comments/foqsyq/economistyo...
Well, gee, that's one big URL. I chose to link this way because, again, the comments section on this isn't bad, and is certainly easier to read than the dense raw data document being linked.
Comments
Sorry. That's excuse making (w/edit)
After the fact "maybes". Defending her because surely you weren't duped is like agreeing Obama *had* to do all those terrible things. Hey, he didn't make the decision lightly! He's really a good guy!
Somehow connecting this to the corona virus is laughable. If she wanted to go home she'd simply go home. It has nothing at all to do with endorsing Biden. Saying it does is grasping at straws.
Mebbe, but it could
well be that the C19 crisis helped her clarify her thinking on continuing campaigning. I doubt if it was no factor in her assessing the situation. It may have been the final factor which decided it for her on dropping out. Campaign stuck at 2-3%; running low on cash; Biden with nearly insurmountable lead; no way forward politically, and now no way to campaign with the virus. States to come may not even hold a primary due to the crisis.
Similarly, the endorsement of Joe may have been her immediate response to her endorsement of Bernie being rejected (if indeed that happened).
But again, how is her endorsing Biden now rather than at the convention so much worse? Waiting to endorse in July would still be selling out her principles, no? Or did some here also expect her not to endorse then, which would have gone against her pledge to endorse the nominee.
Tulsi wants to remain respectable in Democratic politics
in the coming decades.
I was not happy with her decision, but I understand it.
Fuck it, vote Bernie!
"The enemy is anybody who is going to get you killed, no matter which side he's on." Yossarian
If being a good Democrat means lying and cheating
and selling your soul, and so on and so forth, please just go home and spend time with your family and get out of governance.
Please.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
Biden is not yet the nominee
I don't care how many people tell me that he is. Half of the country still needs to vote for whomever they think should be president and until that happens this primary has not been decided. Period.
That people think we need to discontinue the primary and get behind Biden goes against everything this country is supposed to stand for. Free and fair elections even when we know that they are being rigged. Instead of just folding and letting democrats install Biden I want people to watch how they rig it so that the whole effing world will see that democracy in America is just a farce. Which they are seeing.
Anyone who still thinks Tulsi has their best interests at heart are being willfully blind to what she is telling them.
Good grief, I was trying to post an 'upper' here.
I, for one, am trying to AVOID being "blinded" by a single data point to her near-perfect score before (and I'm really sick of getting metaphorically poked in the eyes from all across the political spectrum; can nobody think of something less...invasive???).
She was at Standing Rock, for Goodness' sake. https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/standing-rock-tu...
As I've said before, I don't really know what this move of hers was about...but that's just it. I don't know, I don't understand, and neither do any of you. The story isn't even a month old. Doing a 180-degree change of my opinion of her based on one event is just not rational.
In the Land of the Blind, the One-Eyed Man is declared mentally ill for describing colors.
Yes Virginia, there is a Global Banking Conspiracy!
I gotta disgaree, here LB
Tulsi didn't do just 1 wrong thing. She did several wrong things.
She is bragged about for standing up to the DNC and supporting Bernie. Then she ran against him. THEN, she supports Biden (war criminal) while Bernie is still in some contention for the nomination.
I can't square that.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
I can't 'square' it either
That's why I'm letting it lie it crooked for the time being. It's inconsistent with the character she's otherwise seemed quite consistent with. There's something we're not seeing here (and that's where "blindness" truly reveals itself, is when you ignore - or worse yet, plaster over - what you plainly don't know).
Honestly, there's a lot I don't know, and I'm too worn out at too young an age to do any more real research (because I at least know what that is, it's no light work), but I thought what the comments section in that link said sounded promising.
In the Land of the Blind, the One-Eyed Man is declared mentally ill for describing colors.
Yes Virginia, there is a Global Banking Conspiracy!
It can't be that
unlike her character or she wouldn't have done it.
"The “jumpers” reminded us that one day we will all face only one choice and that is how we will die, not how we will live." Chris Hedges on 9/11
Some factors
she might have considered:
1) she was getting no traction with her 2-3% campaign, after a full year on the stump.
2) she was not exactly swimming in cash.
3) Biden after ST and JrTues looked to be the clear presumptive nominee.
4) C19 put all campaigning on hold for an indefinite period, maybe for the duration
5) There was no choice but to go home; safer there too.
6) She offered an endorsement of Bernie, but it was rejected (per her brother's allegations, not rebutted)
7) Endorsing Biden was a way to acknowledge reality, maybe get something (we don''t know what if anything) in return, at a point of her maximum leverage
8) Endorsing Biden would also serve as an answer to her treatment by Bernie (again, if allegations true), a way for her to personally neutralize her rejection.
eta: 9) she really is friendly with Joe and his wife and considered son Beau a friend.
My 2 cents.
I can't argue with any of that.
In fact, it all points to her caring much more about her future than caring about mine.
She would throw us under the bus to "neutralize" her rejection from Bernie?
With impetuous sensitivities like that, she has no business in public office.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
In the process of being
so principled from the left, some of us forget we are considering human beings who have actual feelings, however much they may show a tough front in public. We've already seen plenty of evidence of Bernie's soft feelings towards Biden and his family, causing him to pull his punches, which at an earlier point were needed in full force. Is that all ok, bc it's Our Bernie, but Tulsi's personal feelings (if they were a factor) not ok bc she's Not My Candidate?
Of course it's all speculation, and no one but Tulsi and maybe her spouse know what really happened with Bernie, and why.
As for "throwing us under the bus", again would the throwing have gone easier if she had stuck to her original plan and endorsed the nominee only in July? Same principles, even 4 months from now.
It might be interesting to hear from some of you greatly upset by her endorsement to ask whether your views of TG would be changed, even if slightly, if it were confirmed that she indeed did try to endorse Bernie first?
I don't give a damn what Bernie
did. He is not the ideal candidate, either.
There is no real justification for her endorsement other than it is self-serving.
She was under no agreement to actively endorse.
"Support the party nominee" is not defined. All she had to do was remain quiet, and go vote.
If an endorsement for a candidate is based upon getting back at another candidate for hurting your fee fee's, that makes it even worse.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
This turned on a thin wafer don't you think?
Bernie has monumental momentum going into ST until the other candidates dropped out and bam just like that Biden got the votes. Every state declared him the winner and some were doing it even before people voted, but if things can turn that quickly for Biden then why can't things change just as fast for Bernie and especially during this epidemic/economic crisis? Maybe more people will be open to what he is saying. Maybe not, but there are still a lot of people that haven't voted yet. Caitlin has been pounding this point home. Don't just roll over, make them expose themselves for stealing it.
just my $.02 cents.
ETA while some states declare Biden the winner the same night Utah just declared that Bernie won Utah on March 3. Hey have we heard from Iowa yet? Have they decided who actually won that debacle that seemed to have been staged by using an untested app instead of sticking with what works and seeing that app had been funded by Mayor Pete himself. Oh my the implications here.....
A big tell that this
was again not going to be Bernie's year was when both MI and WA went for Biden in the last pre-C19 (mostly valid) voting. He badly needed both of those states, states which normally would be his for the taking, esp WA.
The momentum began to change significantly after SC, which vote seemed to certify for many AA voters, and other non-AA voters, that Joe was good enough to beat Donald, the main issue this cycle. And then the bandwagon effect kicked in, with some great assistance from the MSM's cushy coverage of Biden.
And now, with the health crisis and primaries suspended until much later, it makes it even harder for Bernie to mount what would be the greatest political comeback in the modern primary era. I just don't see a miracle happening, or some major event that would inure to the benefit of Bernie. The DNC and SupDels would see to it, if something like the virus or full mental meltdown should happen to Joe, that someone ideologically similar to him -- and not the 2d place finisher -- would be anointed. Probably Klobbachair. Maybe Cuomo.
As for previously in the campaign, I'm not in the It Was Rigged camp. It's always "rigged" when your guy doesn't win (see Hillary 2016). When he does win, it's The System Finally Worked for Once. And it can look rigged for sure when a bunch of candidates suddenly drop out to endorse the frontrunner. Or that could merely be a product of the frontrunner and his camp working continuously and hard behind the scenes to enlist their support, or at least build bridges.
From what I've heard so far, Bernie didn't do a good job of seeking good ties with the establishment wing (and maybe not even with some key players in the progressive wing). And it's very disappointing, esp in the current crisis when Ds have to rely on the shaky Biden to stand up for our side, that the major figures on the Left like Bernie, Tulsi and yes Liz have not coordinated efforts to put forth a united front to speak up for the 99%. Instead, it's a disappointing diluted Dem message coming from Pelosi, Schumer, Biden and Bernie working separately.
The campaign afaict is over. Will there even be any more primaries, or meaningful ones, as people focus their attention on making ends meet, and other existential matters. Will there even be a convention in July? Maybe only a remote, virtual one, unless things improve. All the easier, in that scenario, to not add more complication and stress and just go ahead and ratify the sentiment of voters in the pre-virus voting states.
R'ight.....
Hillary owning the DNC and having total control over wasn't rigging. Nor was her transfering $84 million that was donated to the DNC to her campaign. Nor was Virginia giving Hillary their delegates even thought Bernie won every one of the counties. Just to name a few thing that showed that it wasn't rigged.
Whatever...
Actually I had in mind
her very loud claims and bellyaching that the Rooskies helped steal the election for Trump.
No doubt there were plenty of Dem primary shenanigans in 2016. May or may not have prevented her from winning anyway straight up.
This cycle, it was more a matter of the Biden camp playing the establishment game better than Bernie.
Take a look at exit polls. /nt
What isn't rational
is being against regime change wars and then endorsing the candidate that was in an administration that did 3 of them and also the one who voted for the one that set the Middle East in flames. I have never understood how you can be anti war while serving in the military. She constantly talked about how her brothers and sisters paid the price for them while rarely mentioning the millions of civilians that paid the ultimate price. I will withhold more judgment on Tulsi until I see what she does next.
That, I can mostly agree with
What could be rational is a superficial endorsement (how many people who'd support her to begin with would choose Biden over Bernie, even with her nudge? Talk is cheap, and politicians know it) that somehow buys a bigger victory; the comments section on that link says something about this move somehow screwing over Hillary.
Also, she may also be banking on her own perceived irrelevance (how much does an endorsement matter from a candidate who's been almost totally screwed out of public attention?) and this does more to screw with "The Narrative(TM)", which is almost an inherently good thing.
Traitor, or double-agent? It's never easy to tell.
In the Land of the Blind, the One-Eyed Man is declared mentally ill for describing colors.
Yes Virginia, there is a Global Banking Conspiracy!
Right, I agree with that:
And the question more interesting to me is why so many people are being irrational and try to dump her outright, as if they would be able to understand what is going on with her and why she said what she did say. One day we will know. Wait and see.
Nobody has a clue. It seems the mission of some to 'educate' others of how clueless they are. To those who educate us: Thanks so much for that. I knew already that I am clueless. You can stop wasting your time telling me that.
Certainly I am not giving up. Thanks for posting your opinion.
https://www.euronews.com/live
irrational?
Is this necessary to say?
I am not trying to educate anyone on what they should think of Tulsi endorsing Biden. I am offering my opinion on what I thought of her doing that. Unless you think I should just keep my mouth shut and not say what I think? Seems to me that is calling for censorship which I abhor and am sad to see here more often lately.
Perhaps it was Bernie too?
Not making excuses for her mistaken endorsement, but this added to my understanding.
“Until justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream.”
Well that's concerning
I didn't even know you COULD "reject" an endorsement.
Is there some kind of re-gifting center for those things (maybe next to the Congressional gift shop)...?
In the Land of the Blind, the One-Eyed Man is declared mentally ill for describing colors.
Yes Virginia, there is a Global Banking Conspiracy!
The source is hardly unbiased
and sounds just a bit drama-llama-ish. (I was also unaware that an endorsement could be "refused".) Will wait and see if any more information is forthcoming.
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
You would find it
more credible if the story came solely from a "well-placed" unnamed source published by the "objective" NYT or WaPo?
Usually those very close to a candidate, by definition being in a position to hear the real story going on in private, are considered valuable sources, unless there is some known falling out that has occurred. A sibling would qualify in the valuable source category. Being unbiased is not always a disqualifier.
Would you reject the testimony on this controversy from Tulsi's own spouse? He's hardly unbiased.
Bernie rejected
Cenk's endorsement a few month's ago.
Until I hear TG directly disavow her brother's comments, this one will still stand.
So, if true, did Bernie not want all the Establishment/MSM heat he thought Tg's endorsement would bring? We all know how carefully Bernie has calculated on the FP front -- never, for instance, a full-throated R-gater, but just in that game enough to placate TPTB. A delicate dance for political purposes which hasn't been a profile in courage.
No one can stop her from endorsing whoever she wants to
Even if Bernie did say he didn’t want it (which there is zero proof of), if Tulsi Gabbard wants to give her own opinion on who to support for president, she can name anyone she chooses!
This idea that Bernie somehow prevented her from speaking her own mind is ridiculous. And it certainly doesn’t mean she had to endorse Biden right now in any case.
Obviously, but an
endorsement isn't really complete until the endorsee accepts and acknowledges.
And not exactly "zero proof" of a rejected endorsement as the testimony of her brother surely counts as some proof, until disavowed by Tulsi, which I haven't seen.
Again on the timing, what difference does it make if made now vs July? She was already pledged to support the nominee in July regardless.
when one plays in the big leagues
there is bound to be shenanigans being
doled out in the background
(see Bernie 2016)
perhaps playing the game is good enough
'for some' to survive until the next fight
(see Bernie 2020)
question everything