Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
June 27, 2019

Media And Public Disagree On Tulsi Gabbard's Debate Performance

The mainstream media seem to judge the Democratic primary debate last night quite differently than the general public.

Quartz cites multiple polls which show that Tulsi Gabbard won the debate:

[T]wo candidates seemed to pique a lot of interest among US voters, at least when judged by who Americans searched for on Google: New Jersey senator Cory Booker and Hawaii Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard.

A poll by the right-leaning Drudge Report also found Gabbard to be the breakout of the debate with 38% of the vote, well ahead of Massachusetts senator Elizabeth Warren in second place. Gabbard also topped polls by local news sites including and the Washington Examiner.

Now contrast that with the mainstream media.

The Washington Post discusses winners and losers of the debate and puts Gabbard in the second category:

Gabbard was lost for much of the debate. That may not have been her fault — she wasn’t asked many questions — ....


The New York Times main piece about the debate mentions Gabbard only once - in paragraph 32 of the 45 paragraphs long piece. It does not reveal anything about her actual political position:

There was little discussion of foreign policy until near the end of the debate when two little-known House lawmakers, Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii and Tim Ryan of Ohio, clashed over how aggressively to target the Taliban.

The New York Times also has some 'experts' discussing winners and losers. Gabbard is only mentioned at the very end, and by a Republican pollster, as a potential candidate for Secretary of Defense.

CNN also discusses winners and losers. Gabbard is not mentioned at all.

NBC News ranks the candidates' performance. It puts Gabbard on place 8 and inserts a snide:

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, D-Hawaii: Seized an opportunity to highlight her military experience in Afghanistan and her signature anti-intervention foreign policy views, without being tainted by her past sympathetic comments on Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad.

Most of the above media have long avoided to mention Gabbard and to discuss her political positions. It is quite evident that the mainstream media do not like her anti-regime-change views and are afraid of even writing about them.

Tulsi Gabbard's campaign posted a video of her parts of the debate. She received some good applause.

Posted by b on June 27, 2019 at 15:19 UTC | Permalink

next page »

“Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, D-Hawaii: Seized an opportunity to highlight her military experience in Afghanistan”

Afghanistan or Iraq? I’m confused ...

Posted by: DG | Jun 27 2019 15:35 utc | 1

She humiliated Tim Ryan when he asserted that the Taliban attacked the U.S. on 9/11, pointing out that it was Al Qaeda. Ryan responded that the Taliban protected Al Qaeda. Gabbard then said something to the effect, "Try Saudi Arabia."

I thought it was hypocritical that none of the other candidates thanked Gabbard for her service because you know if it had been some guy who is a Major in the National Guard with a bunch of commendations people would be elbowing each other out of the way to lick his boots.

Posted by: Mike Maloney | Jun 27 2019 15:41 utc | 2

Thanks for the posting b about how manipulated the public is by the MSM.

Better watch it though or you will be accused of trying to influence the US election process.....grin

Posted by: psychohistorian | Jun 27 2019 15:42 utc | 3

Bravo Tulsi ! The msm will hit hard on you, as they will be forced to take the numbers into account. Consider it as stripes...

Posted by: alain | Jun 27 2019 16:03 utc | 4

Tulsi - “You know who is protecting al-Qaeda right now? It’s Saudi Arabia”

MSNBC time given to each candidate:
#1 Booker: 9.68 minutes
#3 Warren: 8.35 minutes
#7 Gabbard: 5.35 minutes

Tulsi was the only candidate to get a negative question directed at her, though she handled it very well.

MSDNC also framed a trick question who is for the elimination of ALL private healthcare. Tulsi didn’t raise her hand because she is for private insurance for supplemental surgery such as plastic surgery, like Bernie. Tulsi and Bernie are the only ones for true Medicare for All. Warren raised her hand but previously has stated she would be for something like combining a public option and medicare for all, so she is now for cosmetic elective plastic surgery being covered under Medicare for All?

It is interesting how the NYTimes has now gone full in for Warren. They had at least three positive opinion columns for her yesterday, plus a front page spread that could have been written by the Warren campaign itself. This while having many negative Biden pieces, the last few days. The neoliberals really wanted Biden, but see he is unelectable so have gotten behind the next Obama. Looks like Wall Street is expecting a crash and want to make sure they are bailed out and not put in jail again.

Tulsi served two tours of duty in the Middle East (Iraq / Kuwait)

Posted by: Stever | Jun 27 2019 16:07 utc | 5

I actually saw that and my eyes started to tear up and then remembered that its all just words to me now. I've heard it all from everyone and nothing ever changes.
Its hard but I have to watch my country fail until we leave the rest of the world alone. Enough of killing to make things better. No president/leader is going to make things better. Only ourselves caring for our neighbors and the planet. Time for this country to break apart so that we can start doing the work that needs to be done. The smaller the scale the more we can effect change.

Posted by: so | Jun 27 2019 16:09 utc | 6

In France main newspaper le Figaro,their Washington correspondent said it was Warren who won the debate,and he only mentiones Tulsi Gabbard once,she stood out because of her red vest,he wrote,nothing about content.So there you are.

Posted by: willie | Jun 27 2019 16:18 utc | 7

We've seen this before in the Ron Paul campaigns. Same ol'. (sigh)

Posted by: Capn Mike | Jun 27 2019 16:22 utc | 8

Tulsi is against "regime change war" which she defines as essentially wars that USA lose.

If Tulsi were a serious anti-war candidate, she would be talking about significant reductions in the military budget. She's not.

Tulsi has drunk the Kool-Aid about Russian interference in US elections. Her nominally anti-war stance helps her to "sell" neo-McCarthyism to those that think her anti-regime change war is "courageous".

Furthermore, she is very passive and "reasonable" about her views, making it easy for MSM to ignore her because every candidate will say that they are for peace and against dumb wars.

<> <> <> <> <>

Anyone looking to any duopoly candidate for salvation is deluded.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Jun 27 2019 16:27 utc | 9

What do you expect from the Warshington Post.

Posted by: bjd | Jun 27 2019 16:28 utc | 10

This blog is now Russian interference promoting isolationist leftism. I have already contacted PropOrNot. /s

Posted by: Cesare | Jun 27 2019 16:42 utc | 11

Tulsi the real deal go girl...

Posted by: notlurking | Jun 27 2019 16:55 utc | 12

@ Stever | Jun 27, 2019 12:07:32 PM #5

What Went Down On Night One Of The First Democratic Debates

At this link is a breakdown of the talking time of all concerned. Notice one of the moderators hogged the microphone, and ended up in 4th place.

Posted by: Zachary Smith | Jun 27 2019 16:57 utc | 13

Tulsi Gabbard is allowed some brief MSM exposure.

To demonstrate that plurality of opinion is alive and well and going strong - toot toot! rah rah! - in the Dem party. A show, a charade.

She may be quite genuine and believe what she states, which seems like common sense, ok. And she is good at it. Her opinions - tagged with Xtreme hopiness - will be shown to be inconguent with the majority, etc.

In any case she can’t win the nomination, she is an ‘actor extra’ on the fringes.

From her promo site:

In this new century, everyone has clean water to drink, clean air to breathe and access to nourishing food; everyone receives the medical care they need, has a roof over their head, receives the education they need and is able to find good paying, fulfilling work. People have financial security and don’t have to worry about making ends meet in their old age.

Our children, and children for generations to come, never worry again about nuclear war and no parent has to wonder where they will hide their children when the missiles strike. Our economy is not dependent on war, but is driven instead by innovation, green technology and renewable industries.

Hmm. There are no pol. proposals whatsoever, please read it. An EXtreme version of hopi-changi.

Posted by: Noirette | Jun 27 2019 17:00 utc | 14

@ Jackrabbit | Jun 27, 2019 12:27:59 PM #9

If Tulsi were a serious anti-war candidate, she would be talking about significant reductions in the military budget. She's not.

Fair enough. So who is a better choice in that regard?

Posted by: Zachary Smith | Jun 27 2019 17:01 utc | 15

Tulsi served in the Anbar province. She understands the difference between Sunni and Shia which is why she is against war with Iran, Syria, and Libya. She also understands the corrupt nature of the US relationship with Saudi Arabia and speaks out against it. This is a big big NO NO in DC. Saudi Arabia is seen as part of the empire. Al Qaeda and ISIS serve their purpose as shock troops for the US empire. If a few buildings have to come down and a few thousand people killed that is a small price to pay for the US being a global hegemonic empire... from counterpunch... Richard Shultz, a professor of international politics at Tufts who’s long been a key national security state intellectual, wrote in 2004 that “A very senior [Special Operations Forces] officer who had served on the Joint Staff in the 1990s told me that more than once he heard terrorist strikes characterized as ‘a small price to pay for being a superpower.’”
It is pretty clear to me that Tulsi doesn't believe this. This is why she is so hated by the MSM. She is former military and largely believes in military spending and fighting Sunni extremists including distancing the US from their sponsor Saudi Arabia and throwing out the US traitors who also support them. I don't believe in US military spending myself but Tulsi is the only honest person running. The rest of them are all completely corrupt. I do believe she would change US foreign policy for the better. Of course this is why she won't be allowed in office.

Posted by: goldhoarder | Jun 27 2019 17:05 utc | 16

I forget the exact details, but I remember that in the last election, a TV network was asked why it did not give more coverage to Bernie Sanders. The reply was that Sanders was not a real contender because he had almost no chance of winning.

Well that's a self-fulfilling prophecy if it's made by those in control of the media (let's forget for a moment that his own party also conspired against him).

It will be interesting to see if Tulsi Gabbard can attract enough support that she cannot be dismissed that easily. Funnily enough, by blocking the more centrist candidates like Sanders, the Democrat leadership has made room for Gabbard who is much more radical (by American standards).

Posted by: Brendan | Jun 27 2019 17:05 utc | 17

I cringed when Tulsi launched into patriotic spiel about her service and could not bear to watch as they went on to over-look her.

But then I realized that she had carefully considered the possibility that she may only be asked one question and that that if there was one point to make that that was it - she unlike most of the others has been willing to put herself at risk do do what she thought was the right thing, serving her country at disadvantage to herself (though there may have been some politics in it, but never mind) as opposed to say "pocahontes" lady for example. She's pretty sharp and would represent us well I think.

Posted by: jared | Jun 27 2019 17:10 utc | 18

@Posted by: Zachary Smith | Jun 27, 2019 1:01:12 PM | 15

Excellent point Zachary. In the first question they asked her about what she might do to improve the economy for the benefit of the un-rich, her first point was that we are spending enormous amounts of our tax dollars on unnecessary wars. Of course the media wanted instead to hear about what new boondoggle programs they might propose, not something as mundane (and unprofitable for some) as reducing military budget to reduce taxation and free up money for other programs.

Posted by: jared | Jun 27 2019 17:14 utc | 19

We're not allowed to consider candidates who would endeavor to make things better for the majority at the expense of the minority, which is why Tulsi Gabbard will never be allowed to the the nominee, regardless of how much her policy positions would resonate with voters were they to actually be exposed to them.

Posted by: SlapHappy | Jun 27 2019 17:19 utc | 20

The democrats are as as polluted as the republicans.
They refuse to see that Warren is far too hysterical to have any chance in a face to face with Trump while Tulsi Gabbard will knock him Trump off.
The dems have been stupid enough to support Clinton that everybody disliked, now they will redo the same mistake and lose again

Posted by: Virgile | Jun 27 2019 17:27 utc | 21

@ Jackrabbit | Jun 27, 2019 12:27:59 PM #9

If Tulsi were a serious anti-war candidate, she would be talking about significant reductions in the military budget. She's not.

This is absurd. The things she talks about ALL THE TIME is how we're spending trillions on regime change wars and how that money could be better used paying for health care, education, the environment, etc. That is the entire focus of her campaign. And, by the way, she is the *only* candidate to speak out against sanctions on Venezuela (and one of maybe two or three to speak out against the US coup), saying that Venezuelans should determine their own future without outside interference.

Posted by: Left I on the News | Jun 27 2019 17:34 utc | 22

My first take on Tulsi's performance (the first hour) was not positive. I thought her early spiel sounded too pro "soldier" and thus pro military, I was wishing she or someone would dig deeper into the "border crisis" and explain the U.S. role in central America especially in the 1980s, naming names (Abrams, North, etc)and telling the American people that most of the refugees are coming from El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras, not Mexico.
This morning I saw the clip of Gabbard taking apart Ryan and felt that she did pretty well overall. I'm hopeful that interest in her will grow as I think she is one of very few in Washington who are trustworthy.

Posted by: michael | Jun 27 2019 17:44 utc | 23

America - the best democracy that money can buy.

Posted by: Sally Snyder | Jun 27 2019 17:45 utc | 24

Gabbard knows the primary race is rigged yet she stays in it and is remarkably measured as she is both attacked and shunned by the "popular people". If the primary race bogs and she stays in she could gain. I hope she is talking to Sanders.

Posted by: michael | Jun 27 2019 17:49 utc | 25

Some Tulsi Gabbard quotes:

"Sadly, the system in this country is rigged in favor of wealthy elites who have purchased tremendous influence in our government."

"We have to put an end to the culture of selfishness and corruption that allows greedy Wall Street banks and executives to rip off working people without any consequences."

"[We need] a Commander in Chief [who will stop] these failed interventionist wars of regime change that have cost our country so much in human lives, untold suffering, and trillions of dollars."

"Will you stand for the humanity of the Yemeni people? Will you stand against Saudi Arabia’s genocidal war? Or will you continue to support this war that has caused 22 million Yemeni people to be in desperate need of humanitarian aid? To cause these 85,000 children to have died from starvation, to have caused the dropping of U.S.-made bombs on innocent civilians, killing tens of thousands of people. This is such an urgent action that must be taken by the United States Congress to assert its authority and end United States support for this genocidal war in Yemen."

"Trump… Nikki Haley...Mike Pompeo... The people around John Bolton. These people are advocating for strengthening our economy, and if the only way they can do that is by building that economy based on building and selling weapons to countries that are using them to slaughter and murder innocent people, then we need new leaders in this country. The American people deserve better than that."

Posted by: Robert Snefjella | Jun 27 2019 17:49 utc | 26

As a Vietnam war veteran I found Tulsi Gabbard's antiwar war stance on target and thoroughly refreshing. The only thing I am dismayed over was the short time she was given to make her point. I am sickened by the neocon chicken hawks, laptop bombardiers, armchair generals and admirals who thank war veterans for their service while glorifying legalized murder and mayhem at the same time. There is a nauseating stench about war that cannot be dismissed nor forgotten by anyone who has seen it and experienced it up close. Gabbard knows this from her own tours of duty in Iraq and Kuwait. Nations do not become great by filling up their cemeteries with the corpses of its potentially best and brightest.

Posted by: GeorgeV | Jun 27 2019 17:49 utc | 27

I will eagerly vote for the first candidate to observe that U.S. lawmaking and U.S. elections are hopelessly corrupt and worthless, and can't be used to fix themsleves or any other issue.

Unfortunately Tulsi Gabbard isn't that person, but she could not be ignored by the Democrat oligarchs if she kept traveling and talking to foreign leaders, especially 'enemy' ones. I hope she realizes that her 'Evil Assad lover' meeting is a gift that keeps on giving to her. I doubt if I would even recognize her name today if that had never happened.

Can you imagine the heads that would explode if she went to China or Russia? Or went to North and South Korea? And [sigh] Iran, Saudi Arabia and Israel? Venezuela? She doesn't have to do ANYTHING there. Just have a nice cup of tea with the leader and/or evil dictator and listen for about half-an-hour, and then leave. Then come back and tell the NYT and WaPo that she had a MOST interesting conversation with the leader but she would prefer not to discuss details with the press. She would get instant 24x7 hate coverage by the MSM. Even Trump would have to tweet about her.

Sometimes you just have to go guerilla in order to take on the 800 lb. swamp gorilla.

Posted by: PavewayIV | Jun 27 2019 17:51 utc | 28

More Tulsi quotes:

"I don't smoke marijuana. I never have... But I believe firmly in every person's freedom to make their own choices, and that people should not be thrown in jail and incarcerated or made into criminals for choosing to smoke marijuana whether it be for medicinal and non-medicinal purposes.
There's no question that this overall war on drugs has not only been a failure, it has created and exacerbated a number of other problems that continue to afflict people in this country..."
Quoted in: For Tulsi Gabbard, Marijuana Sits At Nexus Of Good Policy And Smart Politics, Forbes, nu Tom Angell (7 March 2019)

"We are in a situation today where we, here in the United States and the world, are at a greater risk of nuclear catastrophe than ever before in history.
My commitment in fighting to end these counterproductive regime change wars is based on these experiences and my understanding [of] the cost of war and who pays the price.
Yes, it is our service members. It is our troops. It is our military families. It is the people in these countries, where these wars are waged, whose suffering ends up far worse after we launch these regime change wars... The skepticism, and the questions that I raised, were very specific around incidents that the Trump administration was trying to use as an excuse to launch a U.S. military attack in Syria.
I served in a war in Iraq, a war that was launched based on lies and a war that was launched without evidence. And so the American people were duped... As a soldier, as an American, as a member of Congress, it is my duty and my responsibility to exercise skepticism any time anyone tries to send our service members into harm’s way or use our military to go in and start a new war.”
Quoted by Kevin Gosztola in CNN Foreign Policy Gatekeepers Vilify Tulsi Gabbard for Her Anti-Intervention Dissent, Mintpress News (13 March 2019)

Posted by: Robert Snefjella | Jun 27 2019 17:53 utc | 29

Posted by: Zachary Smith | Jun 27, 2019 1:01:12 PM | 15

"Fair enough. So who is a better choice in that regard?"

There you go again. The universe doesn't owe you an acceptable choice, and in these fake elections you'll never get one.

Posted by: Russ | Jun 27 2019 17:54 utc | 30

How would a media owned by munitions manufacturers behave any differently to someone whose position threatens them making money off death and destruction? The 'national' media is owned by the war industry, nothing more, nothing less.

Posted by: stevelaudig | Jun 27 2019 18:03 utc | 31

@Jackrabbit #9

If Tulsi were a serious anti-war candidate, she would be talking about significant reductions in the military budget. She's not.

Maybe you should have a look at Tulsi Gabbards voting record. She is literally one of the very few who constantly votes against military funding.

Posted by: D | Jun 27 2019 18:04 utc | 32

USA Today had the winners as:

Julian Castro, repeal of the federal law that makes “illegal entry”

Amy Klobuchar bashed Trump for saying he would bring down drug prices, something she said the president has yet to do. "That's what we call at home all foam and no beer," Klobuchar said.

Tulsi Gabbard, During a heated exchanged with Ryan, Gabbard pointed out that the Taliban did not attack the World Trade Center on 9/11. "That's why I and other people joined the military," she continued, "to go after Al Qaeda. Not the Taliban."

...and the losers, as:

Elizabeth Warren, seemed to disappear in the second half of the debate.

Tim Ryan, ran into Tulsi Gabbard

Beto O'Rourke, lacked substance in his answers.


Listened to the debate, too many issues that just allowed posturing without needing a real policy response.

I like the part where Tulsi said that we can't say to the parents of the two US service-men that had just been killed by the Taliban that we should just stay engaged, we need to bring the troops home and, instead, spend the money on building up America.


What is the biggest geo-politic threat facing America (framed as a specific foreign policy question):

Delaney = China & Nuclear Weapons (no cheer)
Inslee = Donald Trump (biggest cheer)
Gabbard = Greatest risk of Nuclear War than ever before (no cheer)
Klobuchar = China & Iran (no cheer)
O'Rourke = Climate Change (modest cheer)
Warren = Climate Change (no cheer)
Booker = Nuclear proliferation & Climate Change (no cheer)
Castro = China & Climate Change (no cheer)
Ryan = China (half-hearted attempted applause)
De Blasio = Russia (2nd biggest cheer)

I think, Klobuchar noticed the response De Basio got and started to bash Russia later in the debate.


Closing statements:

Delaney (a bit spacey, wasn't paying attention, aspirational, American dream)

De Blasio (heart & soul of the party, track record, health care, working people first, slogan = it matters)

Inslee (climate crisis, the only candidate to make this the top priority)

Ryan (oh, dear I won't even try)

Gabbard (against the rich & powerful, this must end, every single person gets the health care they need, environment, well-paying jobs, justice for all)

Castro (immigrant story, health, jobs, slogan = adios to Donald Trump)

Klubacher (listens and acts, always wins, can beat Trump, not the establishment candidate, not funded by corporate interests, slogan = govern for you)

Booker (rising to our best, he will beat Trump, best of who we are)

O'Rourke (emosh, for the children, new kind of politics)

Warren (emosh, great honour, modest background, American dream, we can make the country work)


I think Delaney and Ryan are toast.

Unfortunately, De Blasio could go far on the anti-Russia dog whistle.


Jackrabbit has a point about what can you expect from a single person being elected.

But he is wrong about Tulsi Gabbard's policy on military spending:

"Tulsi believes the United States would be far better off spending the trillions of dollars wasted in interventionist wars on more pressing domestic issues in America, like infrastructure, college debt, healthcare, etc."

The US is engaged in more conflicts than at any time since the end of WWII, at the same time its military is beginning to fail, and its economy is on a precipice. There is no real political movement anywhere in the US that is effectively addressing these issues.

I don't see Americans organising to take control of their government, to stop the wars or anything like that.

The only hope that American's have is to send a message that the wars have got to stop, to vote for a candidate that is committed and best able to stop those wars, and for those voters to hold that candidate to account.

The only candidate that fits that bill is Tulsi Gabbard.

If you wish to opt-out, then organise, rise up and take control.....ehh, what's that?....I thought not!

If all you are going to do is watch the TV, eat chips, drink beer and moan, then the very least thing that you can do is vote for Tulsi Gabbard!

Posted by: ADKC | Jun 27 2019 18:15 utc | 33

D @32: link to Vote Smart on Tulsi positions:

Budget: In order to balance the budget, do you support reducing defense spending?

National Security: Do you support increased American intervention in Middle Eastern conflicts beyond air support?

(Note: "inferred" positions)

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Jun 27 2019 18:16 utc | 34

More Breadless Circus.

Tulsi Gabbard volunteered to go kill brown people on the other side of the world. If she renounces her service to the Empire and regrets her part in mass murder, that would get my attention.

But it doesn't matter. If she doesn't play ball she will get the Dennis Kucinich treatment. Anybody remember him, or has he fallen down the memory hole? He loudly opposed Uncle Sam's foreign policy and even introduced an impeachment bill against W Bush after the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

The Empire struck back by re-drawing congressional districts. That forced him to run against another Dummycrat congressional incumbent in the primary, and he lost. All politicians are required to get with the program; they are either co-opted or shoved out.

The only exception I can think of is Eleanor Holmes Norton, the non-voting delegate in Congress who represents the District of Columbia. The establishment can afford to ignore her because her vote doesn't count, just like all the other D.C. residents.

"If voting counting, they wouldn't let us do it."

Posted by: Trailer Trash | Jun 27 2019 18:23 utc | 35

Left I on the News @22:

... she talks about ALL THE TIME is how we're spending trillions on regime change wars and how that money could be better used ...

And she talks about WHY she's against "regime change war": it has proven to be counter-productive. She's not opposed to war on any moral grounds. She's against wars that USA loses.

And she doesn't say WHO DOES WIN in these counter-productive wars. She won't connect dots.

<> <> <> <> <> <>

If she took a moral stance and connected dots, she wouldn't be a Democratic Party candidate.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Jun 27 2019 18:25 utc | 36


National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018

It is never to late to see the light :)

Posted by: D | Jun 27 2019 18:25 utc | 37

Jackrabbit @34

Aren't you suffering a bit from confirmation bias?

Well, you don't have to rely on inferred position. Why not look at her actual positions here.

You will find she has a clearly stated wish and track record to end the wars.

As regards the funding of the military Tulsi clearly stated that she wishes to end the US military interventions and to use the money saved to build up America.

If elected she may not be able to do it, because it takes more than one person being in the position of President, but that's down to the American people, firstly to vote for Tulsi, and secondly, to hold her to account.

Posted by: ADKC | Jun 27 2019 18:33 utc | 38

Democracy works!

We already elected a POPULIST candidate of color from Hawaii that promised to end dumb wars. His name was Barrack Obama.

How'd that work out?

And POPULIST Trump also promised to end costly wars. He complained about the the trillions of dollars wasted (much more forcefully than Gabbard). But he's doubled-down by illegally occupying Syria and pulling out of JCPOA.

Why should we believe ANY duopoly candidate?

<> <> <> <> <> <>

How many times do you have to be bamboozled before you recognized the game? The establishment tries hard to keep people ignorant. Everyone else is stupid, complicit, cowardly, or lazy (a combination of all three).

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Jun 27 2019 18:39 utc | 39

The thirty-odd reactions here to Tulsi Gabbard are a perfect example of how & why the left is so hopelessly fragmented.
People, for the umptieth time, it is impossible to ever find 100 point zero zero zero percent overlap or coverage with any candidate for any office, ever.
But that fact does not justify throwing them all at the stake.
You are burning to ashes your own chances of ever seeing a society that even remotely resembles your ideals.

Posted by: bjd | Jun 27 2019 18:40 utc | 40

Jackrabbit @36

Because it's not a moral stance, it's a practical stance.

The whole of America is a christian country; this should mean that you turn the other cheek, you do not kill, you do not steal, etc. Does America abide by these basic tenets? No, it does not. Would American christian voters vote to disarm? No, they would not. American was built on genocide and theft of land; are Americans going to give it back? No, they are not.

You accuse Tulsi of hypocrisy, but that hypocrisy is endemic in the entire American population, even within yourself.

Posted by: ADKC | Jun 27 2019 18:47 utc | 41

Gotta love living in a Dollar Democracy where one dollar = one vote. Voting only legitimizes an illegitimate regime. "None of the above" would be an interesting ballot option, and about as realistic as retiring at age 55, which we were promised decades ago.

Posted by: Trailer Trash | Jun 27 2019 18:47 utc | 42

Jackrabbit @39

"The establishment tries hard to keep people ignorant. Everyone else is stupid, complicit, cowardly, or lazy (a combination of all three)."

Which are you?

Posted by: ADKC | Jun 27 2019 18:50 utc | 43

ADKC @38

She's better than the rest. Which isn't saying much because we've been played before by candidates that sounded so earnest about their convictions: Change You Can Believe In Obama, and America First Trump.

It's smart for the Democratic Party to have an "anti-war" candidate.

It short-circuits the realization that, after betrayals by Obama and Trump, an anti-war Movement is needed.

It's so easy to play people that believe that the game is fair. Democracy works!

<> <> <> <> <> <>

Why aren't we talking about the Yellow Vest Movement?

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Jun 27 2019 18:50 utc | 44

bjd @40:

You are burning to ashes your own chances of ever seeing a society that even remotely resembles your ideals.

It's been burned to ashes again and again. When do we recognize the most important and pressing issue is how our Democracy works (or rather, doesn't)?

Those in power don't rely on hopium. But they are so pleased that YOU will.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Jun 27 2019 19:06 utc | 45

Jackrabbit @38

Because there is nothing like a gilets jaunes movement in the US.

Because the gilets jaunes vote and it looks like they will be organising around voting particularly in 2020.

Because the gilets jaunes engage with each other, regardless of their politics and who they vote for.

Because, the gilets jaunes movement is really a defence of the gains of the French revolution, the commune system and the idea of France for the French and "liberty, equality, fraternity".

And because the gilets jaunes aspire to be the whole of the people of France and they don't blame each other for voting the wrong way or being fooled, they learn and get better at organising, campaigning

Posted by: ADKC | Jun 27 2019 19:06 utc | 46

ADKC: @46: Because ...

No. We don't talk about them ...

... because there is practically a ban on Western (non-french) reporting about the Movement.

... because gilets jaunes recognizes that the game is rigged: one of their key demand is direct democracy.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Jun 27 2019 19:12 utc | 47

Hey, Trailer Trash

She was a medic. She did not volunteer to go kill people.

Also, to the claim that she has no policy positions: good grief, are you capable of navigating a site? She has tons of clearly worded policy positions.

Finally, the VoteSmart site is clearly compromised if that's what it is saying about Gabbard. Her positions are vastly different from those stated.

Posted by: Linda Hagge | Jun 27 2019 19:14 utc | 48

bjd @40,

Bourgeois neoliberals aren't the left. They're the right wing and they need to be physically removed from the Democrat Party, by any means necessary, preferably the helicopters made by the defense contractors they gave our money to.

Posted by: Jonathan | Jun 27 2019 19:18 utc | 49

Trailer Trash @35--

Saudis aren't "brown." They wear robes to protect themselves from the ghastly sun and are seldom swarthy.

ADKC @33&38--

Thanks for writing all that and for your rebuttal.

My one point about Ms Gabbard: The order to deploy to Iraq qualified as an Illegal Order at the time and was proven beyond doubt to be one afterward. It was her sworn duty to refuse the illegal order and to oppose the traitorous domestic forces that caused its issuance. That mistake/flaw is shared by every US military person AND members of Congress aside from the few who voted against the 2nd Iraq War--yet they did nothing to oust those who clearly committed an illegal, unconstitutional, impeachable act, and they still refuse to do their duty now.

As I wrote on a previous thread about Ms Gabbard, she isn't perfect, but we'll never ever get perfect, and the same I've said about Sanders. There are choices, and they are clear choices. But the citizenry has its own duty to perform and must vote for those choices--Voting Matters!

Posted by: karlof1 | Jun 27 2019 19:18 utc | 50

Jackrabbit @44

"She's better than the rest."

No, she's more than that. She's better than Obama or Trump. She has a much better track record and she already has a clear position against the wars. Sober reflection should make you realise that both Obama and Trump were adopting/amending their positions in line with what the pollsters told them was working.

Sanders is shakey and uncertain on foreign policy, Tulsi isn't.

But, I can't tell you that she won't let you down because you're an adult and don't need fairy tales anymore, but it's almost last chanceville for the US and you'll be waiting a long time for a revolution.

Posted by: ADKC | Jun 27 2019 19:22 utc | 51

bjd @40--


Posted by: karlof1 | Jun 27 2019 19:23 utc | 52

>She was a medic. She did not volunteer to go kill people.
>Posted by: Linda Hagge | Jun 27, 2019 3:14:41 PM | 48

The entire purpose of US War Department is to kill people and break things when vassals refuse to obey. Everybody who signs up understands and accepts that basic fact. My nephew actually stated to me that he signed up for the Marines so he could kill people legally.

People who want to patch up the sick and wounded sign up for Médecins Sans Frontières or similar, not Uncle Sam's mass murder machine.

Posted by: Trailer Trash | Jun 27 2019 19:27 utc | 53

Lighten up, Trailer Trash. Not everyone can be so enlightened as you from the moment they're born. It takes some of us well into our 20's, 30's, or even later to figure out how corrupt this country actually is.

Posted by: SlapHappy | Jun 27 2019 19:53 utc | 54

Jackrabbit @47

You've changed the context.

Do you really think that if coverage of the gilets jaunes was "unbanned" in the US and were on the TV more often that there would be some kind of copycat movement? What, then, did the gilets jaunes see on the google box then so inspired them?

If you think that Americans need MSM coverage to inspire a gilets jaunes type movement then it's a non-starter.

The stated policies of gilets jaunes are quite comprehensive, often contradictory and changeable. One policy that caught my eye (many months ago) was the idea of abolishing the Central African Franc; this amounts to the end of the French African empire (effectively France has an undeclared empire of extraction based on the CFA - it probably is allowed to operate this empire by the US).

Gilets janunes are already taking control of village communes because everyone is "together" including elected mayors. Macron wanted to get rid/fundamentally change the commune system. But, you are wrong if you think that the gilets jaunes won't be voting (as well as organising, protesting and campaigning).

Possibly, the street protests may be coming to an end. They have been dwindling, but who knows. If they do end, no doubt Macron will crow that he has won, however, he would be wrong. Expect an exertion of the gilet jaunes in 2020 via the ballot box.

Posted by: ADKC | Jun 27 2019 19:55 utc | 55

@Virgile (21) If you think that Sen. Warren is "hysterical" and would not have a chance facing off against Trump, then I can only assume that you have not seen her in action. She is incredibly well-informed, quick on her feet and unflappable. She would make Trump look like the clown that he is.

Posted by: Rob | Jun 27 2019 20:03 utc | 56

Rob @56

Warren was helped by the moderators; she was given the first and last word. But she faded badly; she will not fare well against Trump.

Posted by: ADKC | Jun 27 2019 20:10 utc | 57

I got suckered by Obama’s fake “hope for change you can believe in”, hook, line and sinker.

Hard not to be jaded about hopeful-looking candidates and elections and “democracy”.

Posted by: Featherless | Jun 27 2019 20:16 utc | 58

For more on her laudable opposition to wars of neo-colonial aggression see:

"Tulsi Gabbard Pushes No War Agenda – and the Media Is out to Kill Her Chances"

IMO, Biden has already been selected by the Democratic party machine. He has the additional advantage of opposing higher taxes on the super rich who will now "invest' in their future.

Biden represents the stay the course elite who get rich from foreign conflicts, just ask his son who was kicked out of the US Navy for his cocaine habit and now is getting rich from the Ukraine coup.

I recommend that all Americans actually visit a party caucus at the county of district level to see how the party bosses "select" their presidential candidate. It is a sobering but depressing experience.

As for those who are waiting for the perfect leader - remember that such a leader would likely be murdered by those who have money in the game.

Posted by: Krollchem | Jun 27 2019 20:16 utc | 59

They can't do to Gabbard what they did to Kucinich (redistrict him out of any chance of keeping his seat), because Hawaii has only two House seats.

By the way, something else Gabbard has notably done is to oppose prosecuting Assange.

Posted by: lysias | Jun 27 2019 20:30 utc | 60

ADKC @55

Blaming the victim doesn't justify the banning. In fact, it highlights it. Why ban it if people would not respond anyway?

I didn't say Gillets Jaune wouldn't vote, nor did I say Americans shouldn't vote. What I'm pointing out is really undisputed:

1) Candidates must sell their soul for money in order to get elected - those that do so, get the blessing of TPTB and media coverage that goes along with it.

Assuming that Gabbard is everything that her fans think she is, she will NOT be elected (I'd be surprised if you don't know this already);

2) voting has a limited effect, especially on issues considered important to the Empire (Princeton University researchers determined that USA is a plutocracy; other research has more or less confirmed this);

3) establishment asshats are waaay ahead of the 'voting public', which gets played time and time again.

It's been reported that Democratic Party policy is to focus on healthcare and ignore foreign policy/military issues (essentially: Empire). As far as I can see, only Gabbard seems to disagree with this policy.

The combination of corporate presstitue media and a money-based electoral system has crippled "democracy". But Americans are encouraged to believe that democracy works and the will of the people gets more than lip service.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Jun 27 2019 20:53 utc | 61

thanks b.. if the msm is blowing her off hard here, she must have some real merit...

however i tend to see it like jackrabbit to a good degree.. the whole voting thing appears like a waste of time.. i can't remember the poster who was saying that - b4real? i think so.. gabbard isn't going to make it as it doesn't jive with the war party that controls the msm.. it will be like another bernie saunders moment.. she will get steamrolled by the dem or repub machine - whichever one she is presently on - i can't remember.. clearly i am not an american... voting looks hopeless at this point.. they need to change the system.. the only way that is likely to happen is a complete breakdown of the system.. that is what i am hoping for..

Posted by: james | Jun 27 2019 20:54 utc | 62

When Gabbard is forthright and hits hard with well-informed, well-thought out positions; delivered calmly and with composure; regardless of how far from the mainstream they fall; she scores. This is a boxer who can win. But Gabbard has to resist the temptation to fall in line with political weaseling. Politicians are told that they must go where the voters' are, triangulating so as not to offend, trying to cover all the bases, trying to confirm voters' biases (heavily propagandized and managed biases, via media, etc., so that it becomes an easy game for those in on the game): a real leader speaks to where he or she knows that the people need to go, relying on the people to catch up, relying on some kind of faith to keep going when that takes a while to happen.

The forthright and courageous Tulsi Gabbard wins minds and hearts.

I think she should wear less makeup.

Posted by: paul | Jun 27 2019 21:06 utc | 63

I would without doubt prefer Tulsi over any of the other candidates on that stage, but I still don't know how seriously to take her. Sure, she talks a good game about ending régime-change wars, but she also seems to think that the 'War on Terra' (as Pepe Escobar used to call it) is an actual thing, when in fact, it's just a big psy-op. We all know that 9/11 was a false-flag that was staged to justify the serial destruction of all the mid-east countries that refuse to bow down before Tel Aviv and Washington; and that 'Al Qaeda' is really just a Saudi-funded, CIA-trained dupe-group used either to justify our presence in the ME, or else to directly attack countries like Syria.

Does Tulsi really not know this? If she doesn't, then she's stupid. And if she does and she's choosing to keep quiet about it for some reason, then who's she fooling? The neocons? Or us?

So that's what bothers me about Tulsi. Still, I think she'd be preferable to four more years of Zion Don (though I realize that isn't saying much).

Posted by: Seamus Padraig | Jun 27 2019 21:14 utc | 64

@karlof1 50

I have been watching Gabbard for a long time now. As you mentioned there is no perfect candidate. But she is the lesser evil at this point.

The elephant in the room is as usual Israel. Did she sign that pledge when she got into office? How much money has she received from AIPAC. Being a CFR member is a problem as well. Where does she stand with respect to the Palestinians?

Once she repeats the line of “Israel has a right to defend itself” nonsense, it’s all downhill from there. You cannot make a new foreign policy direction once you signed that pledge. You have to continue with the master plan. Obama was told that, so was Trump. That has been proven and it’s not up for debate.

Sadly, I still believe this is all a show for the masses. Nothing will change. The country is doomed and the Empire will take its direction either good or bad, without any inputs from the rest of us.

Posted by: Uncle Jon | Jun 27 2019 21:15 utc | 65

Tulsi always makes me think of the Simpson's episode where the Donald is elected President and all hell breaks loose.

Trump is then replaced by Lisa Simpson who fixes the mess by raising taxes, lol.

A flexible fake narrative underpins all our fake reality, particularly with respect to the sham of electoral politics but for my money it's Warren who will reprise the role Lisa Simpson when all is said and done.

Posted by: C I eh? | Jun 27 2019 21:22 utc | 66

Jackrabbit @61

Effectively you're continually advocating for not voting; you're not trying to claim some technical distinction are you? If so you should be a politician.

I'm not blaming anyone - I'm merely pointing out that which is obvious to all - there is no prospect of a gilets jaunes type movement in the US! Please, please, please prove me wrong?

The candidates that you have, and the outcome of the election is a reflection of the American people and how does it help to set yourself apart as some great sage, the only one who could see through the whole charade?

You're displaying a lot of immaturity. I can't speak for the US, but most people that I know who vote have a realistic outlook of the limitations of voting. The very act of voting is an indication of weakness or relative powerless, but its the only thing you have. It's suits a lot of the elite if you don't vote.

It doesn't matter whether Tulsi loses or not; that's the future! For now, you have a candidate with a clear anti-war position, advocate for those policies, convince your fellow Americans that those are the right policies, convince your fellow Americans to vote for those policies.

I hope Tulsi wins because I want to see her policies enacted. Unfortunately, it is likely that at some stage she'll be knocked out. Then you can say "I told you so". Well goodie for you, but you will have missed the opportunity to advocate for those policies and, get this, you may never, ever get that opportunity again! So squander it if you must, that's up to you.

Posted by: ADKC | Jun 27 2019 21:27 utc | 67


I think we are saying the same thing. I see no hope of a new brave candidate. All the same, different packaging.

If she would have said that it was neither Al-Queda or the Taliban who attacked us, that would get my attention. But then again, she would have zero chance of being on that podium.

Posted by: Uncle Jon | Jun 27 2019 21:30 utc | 68


Well, anon, did the pro-Trump troll jack those polls or not?

Posted by: Inkan1969 | Jun 27 2019 21:48 utc | 69

Wow look at this; people are begging to be fooled and defrauded again. It doesn't matter if candidate X is the real deal, it doesn't matter if they say all the right things, it doesn't matter if they think them, it doesn't matter if they swear to it, it doesn't matter if it is all they live and breathe and they're being absolutely honest and earnest: we know what happens to such people, they turn (for whatever reason).

Back when I believed the lies I rationalized this into "they have more information and they must know better than me". Easy to think the vast majority thinks along those lines if they care or think at all. So I supported toppling Saddam, I thought they would do things right, I thought they had done things right in the past (now I doubt that too). I was naive and calling myself that hurts more than anyone here can understand. Assange and Snowden (both who may not be what they portray themselves as) saved me. I no longer believe the lies or at least I try to avoid believing in lies.

I don't believe in communism (or any -ism, I think they're all bad no matter how good they start as, they all invite brain-rot and worse) but at least any true communist will be calling for revolution and not "but she [or he] is better than the others".

Posted by: Sunny Runny Burger | Jun 27 2019 21:50 utc | 70

On Voting:

Several years ago, we placed on the ballot a referendum to stop Big Timber from indiscriminately using helicopters or other contrivances to spray insecticides onto us, all we own and our natural surround. Big Timber outspent us @10,000:1 and employed the usual campaign of corporate lies to get us to vote against our health and other interests, which included editorials in favor of Big Timber by the leading Oregon newspapers. At least we had the opportunity to vote on the issue. When living in Santa Clara County, California during the 1970s, we had no choice and got sprayed daily with Malathion insecticide to try and destroy drosophila--the common fruit fly--which we all knew was an impossible task and would have lost if put to a vote. We won at the ballot box and preserved our health and that of our communities and the visitors we need to attract to survive in our tourism heavy economy.

The bottom line is voting matters! Arguments to the contrary only serve the interests of the Current Oligarchy. And I grow oh so weary of reading that crap on this site, which makes the people writing such tripe to have the appearance of Trolls!

Posted by: karlof1 | Jun 27 2019 21:56 utc | 71

Jackrabbit @61

"voting has a limited effect, especially on issues considered important to the Empire (Princeton University researchers determined that the USA is a plutocracy; other research has more or less confirmed this)"

If that was the natural outcome of democracy and voting then you would not need to have a secret plan masterminded by James Buchanan and funded by the Koch brothers to make it so.

Ever wondered why corrupt politicians keep getting into power, why no politician is ever really required to resign in disgrace, why all your politicians are getting excessive financial contributions from lobbyists, why you have contempt for your politicians, why voting is suppressed, why not voting is encouraged, why you don't vote? Well, Frank Buchanan's your man.

You like to think of yourself as an independent thinker, well Frankie's got you pre-programmed!

Posted by: ADKC | Jun 27 2019 22:00 utc | 72

i immediately thought of the huffington post's decision to stop covering trump and stick anything related to his campaign in their "entertainment" section. we all know how well that little piece of passive-aggressive nonsense went. and that's all this is. they know if they switch from a WASPy "oh, are you still here?" stance to their other, more familiar mode of seething contempt they'll give her attention and play into the hands of the "any enemy of the MSM is a friend of mine" crowd.

also, though i hate to "go there", it must drive them crazy that she's so...telegenic. the news media is for all intents and purposes a division of the entertainment industry set aside for fugly people and they're predisposed to fawning over how "handsome" basic idiots like obama or beto supposedly are. for them to actively ignore a woman who could be the first truly hot president must be torture. (all due respect to her and her laudable positions. just saying it's hard to deny.)

as for her policies, of course they hate that stuff. ask gravel or kucinich. the silicon valley gestapo are also going berserk censoring every 3rd internet post and will crush adult discussion with a vengeance. any gains she makes will be attributed to russia. the israeli occupied wing of the press and government - that is to say 99% of either - will screech at her as loudly as they do corbyn if not louder. a stuffed suit like beto will be selected, voters will stay home and we'll have 4 more years of president boltpeo. democracy for the lose.

Posted by: the pair | Jun 27 2019 22:05 utc | 73

sorry, I see my links are a b repeat -- but hey she deserves the headlines

Posted by: Don Bacon | Jun 27 2019 22:18 utc | 75

just a few other thoughts on random comments here:

despite their suspicious absence from US coverage,the gilets jaunes have "inspired" a similar (looking) movement here in MAGAberta:

as these inbred apes and the lack of cohesion among "occupy" protesters have shown, anyone can claim the superficial aspects of a "movement" while completely missing the point. even color revolution spawning neocons know that effective revolt is all about location and "staying on message".

as for whether yanks should vote, it's their decision but i'd advise against lending any legitimacy whatsoever to the ossified ritual of "democracy" that feels more and more like going through the motions every year. once the non-voters outnumber the voters do the degree chavistas outnumber "opposition" yuppies in venezuela then we can relegate the US versions to the same margins of society and let them suffer in their hampton summer homes.

Posted by: the pair | Jun 27 2019 22:22 utc | 76

ADKC I'm not arguing for or against any of this and I'm not judging what people choose, I only want to say that last I heard it was claimed that there's something between 1 and 3 hundred thousand people born in the US who do not acknowledge the US federal and local governments as legal. Not much compared to 329 million but still they're there. They're armed without any licenses, file no tax returns, and prefer gold, some of them end up in jail for sure when they're caught and try to reason with judges (a mistake). I doubt any of them live in cities. They call themselves sovereign or something such.

Then there's all the Americans who do file taxes despite not considering the governments legal, they do so out of convenience.

Then there's all those who accept government hand-outs while still not having any fondness for the US as it exists, these can be found both in inner cities across the nation and behind every second bush in the Appalachians :P

Nothing but comfort and risk stops anyone from playing by their own rules.

Plenty of people in the US rebel, plenty but not enough.

Last US federal election there were at least ten candidates for president ie. eight smaller parties. I would vote for any of those (doesn't matter which), where I live that's what I did the last election here; voted for a micro-party (and I have no illusions about them). It's not that I believe in voting, I did it because it maximized the amount of parties that would get one vote less in relative terms. It's not sabotage when it's my right :)

Posted by: Sunny Runny Burger | Jun 27 2019 22:27 utc | 77

@karlof1 71

I too vote and encourage my children to be involved in the political process. However, if voting mattered, Clinton would be President right now. Thank god Oligarchy decided otherwiseand sabes us a Global conflict.

Voting at a local level and for a local issue is quite different than presidential election. With all due respect, I voted for “Hope and Change” the first time and I was betrayed. So were millions of others.

Our vote will not matter at presidential election until Citizens United is repealed and campaign finance reform is implemented. Alas, I keep on voting.

Posted by: Uncle Jon | Jun 27 2019 22:33 utc | 78

By the way all the arguments in favor of Gabbard were used for Trump.

And Obama.

And Bush Jr.!!! (Only first time around).

Deny it if you want to.

Posted by: Sunny Runny Burger | Jun 27 2019 22:36 utc | 79

@ the pair 77
as for whether yanks should vote, it's their decision but i'd advise against lending any legitimacy whatsoever to the ossified ritual of "democracy"

That's been my policy. Voting for one clown or another (only two miserable choices) every four years "ain't no part of nuthin'," to quote Bill Monroe (of Bluegrass fame).
So forty percent of the electorate doesn't vote in the presidential.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Jun 27 2019 22:36 utc | 80

While I agree with those who state that it is all a sham and that she doesn't have a chance, I still think that she is a test to show the extent to which the yankee populace has been suborned into the structure's propaganda bullshit. I think that if they do sideline her she should stand as a third party candidate. I also suspect that the more people actually see her and that the more intelligent element will support her. The better she does, the more difficult it will be for the structure to maintain absolute power. After all there is little significant difference between corporate democrats and corporate republicans.

Posted by: exiled off mainstree | Jun 27 2019 22:43 utc | 81


"... and the outcome of the election is a reflection of the American people"

No, it's not. Our faux populist Presidents are put there to betray us. They serve the establishment and the Empire.

... its the only thing you have.

No. We have the internet. We have rights of free speak and assembly, etc. They haven't taken these away (yet).

It's suits a lot of the elite if you don't vote.

It suits them even more if you don't protest against the rigged system.

Then you can say "I told you so".

We already know enough to know what the outcome will be. No "I told you so" is unnecessary.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Jun 27 2019 22:50 utc | 82

karlof1 @72

Strangely, while you write to support voting, the citizen action you describe is much more like what I have suggested is necessary.

Active/direct democracy is very different than simply voting for a representative.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Jun 27 2019 22:53 utc | 83

Who would Gabbard employ in all the various positions? Who would President Gabbard magically get through the approval process? Yeah, thought so, LOL X)

Posted by: Sunny Runny Burger | Jun 27 2019 23:01 utc | 84

I wanted Tulsi to be genuine but in doing some research I am sharing just a little of what I found: she is a current member of the Counsel on Foreign Relations and CFR members are telling: they include all previous presidents (although I can’t find trump on it yet), N. Palosi, J. Diamon of JP Morgan, D. Chaney, Z. Brzezinski, Rockefellers, Soros, Gen. Powell, M. Albright, both Clintons, J. Epstein, J McCain, R. Murdoch, Gen. Patreus, C. Rice, Dan Rathers, H. Kissinger, and Allen Dulles are just a few of over 4k and while I am sure that there are some CFR members that are doing good works around the world I have yet to come across one. The CFR has been controlling the political dialogue since their inception in 1919, with a revolving door straight into the White House. Just a reminder that Obama entered the public imagination with the same antiwar speeches as Gabbard’s but her actual voting record on war and peace issues, especially on military spending, is not nearly as dovish as Sanders’. She voted for 19 of 29 military spending bills in the past 6 years, and she has only a 51% Peace Action voting record. Many of the votes that Peace Action counted against her were votes to fully fund controversial new weapons systems, including nuclear-tipped cruise missiles (in 2014, 2015 and 2016); an 11th US aircraft-carrier (in 2013 and 2015); and various parts of Obama’s anti-ballistic missile program, which fueled the New Cold War and arms race she now decries. She voted at least twice (in 2015 and 2016) not to repeal the much-abused 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force, and she voted three times not to limit the use of Pentagon slush funds. In 2016, she voted against an amendment to cut the military budget by just 1%. I am hoping that people will think about taking her off of the antiwar pedestal soon. HI is owned and operated by the MIC. The large bases on Oahu and Big Island, hostel takeover of land that continues here today, the air, noise and water pollution and the general attitude that they can do anything that they want where ever they want is prevalent and she is part of that tribe. She is still in the military herself and embraces what she calls a “military mindset.” She ended a CNN Town Hall by saying that being Commander-in-Chief is the most important part of being president. And if she becomes a part of the Sanders ticket, we have to ask, “Which Tulsi would we see in the White House?” Would it be the Major with the military mindset trained to take orders from above who cannot seem to vote against new weapons systems or even a 1% cut from the trillions of dollars in military spending? Or would it be the veteran who has seen the horrors of war and is determined to bring the troops home and never again send them off to kill and be killed in endless regime change wars?

Posted by: Aloha | Jun 27 2019 23:02 utc | 85

I am much more impressed with Gabbard in one-on-one sit-downs than I wascat the debate. She really needs to sharpen her message and delivery as to not get labeled a one-trick pony.

Posted by: Woogs | Jun 27 2019 23:07 utc | 86

*waits in anticipation for responses to Aloha*

Posted by: Sunny Runny Burger | Jun 27 2019 23:12 utc | 87

Jackrabbit @84

Have you looked into Frank Buchanan yet?

Everything you said is just wishful imaginings.

No matter than you don't like it but every President is a reflection on the voters; you disagree because you are imagining that every American that doesn't vote is somehow protesting when in reality a good proportion are satisfied, not caring, not really bothered, doing something else; whatever the reasons these are not revolutionary acts no matter how much you wish they were.

Not voting is not a protest against a rigged system it is delusionary to think that it is.

At the next election (not US) I get the chance to vote for a candidate with a long history of the policies that I would like to see, after waiting nearly 40 years. He wasn't intended, he got into this position strictly by mistake. He will probably lose, or if he wins he will be frustrated at every turn, or, if that fails he'll be overthrown or worst. I have a fair idea how it will turn out. I'll still be voting for him. I wouldn't miss this opportunity for all the tea in china.

You didn't respond to my main point about missing the opportunity to advocate for the policies of no war just because you know how it's all gonna turn out?

Posted by: ADKC | Jun 27 2019 23:13 utc | 88

@72 karlof1.. that is a bit harsh... i don't agree with you either..

Posted by: james | Jun 27 2019 23:18 utc | 89

Sunny Runny Burger @89

Aloha's barely comprehensible post is just a cut and paste job of hoary old arguments used against Tulsi. It will take awhile to untangle them but I can respond to each and every one of them; it would have been useful if Aloha could be bothered to form paragraphs but cutting and pasting is quite demanding. I already know that you will not accept any of the rebuttals.

You're quite gleeful for someone who only a few posts ago appeared to be racked with guilt over a pro-war past. Also, didn't you (in another thread) blame the peace movement for (somehow) not enabling you to engage in the peace movement?

Now when you get the chance to make up for past sins you still attack those who are against war (or more accurately, in Tulsi's case, against wars of regime change) rather than those who are pro-war. I think you are determined to protray anyone who is anti-war as a liar because you believe that absolves you in some way?

Posted by: ADKC | Jun 27 2019 23:28 utc | 90

You know, even Communists vote and practice democracy. Are MoA commentators aware of that odd sounding fact?

I said what I wanted to and will let it stand as it is. I understand why the Electoral College was adopted by the USA and needed to explain that to students, which is far more often than most here have had to do, IMO.

I'll argue corruption runs very deep and is a longstanding political tradition going back to well before 1776. I suggest reading The Ordeal of Thomas Hutcherson for a taste of the Boston Version.

Now, to one of the questions at hand--Ms Gabbard's position on Israel. I spent a bit of time looking through her voting record, but need at least a whole day to do a proper examination. Wikipedia's entry on the topic doesn't seem very up-to-date. Indeed, its entire page has little about her 2019 activities. This site is the only one I found with a decent listing of her stances on most issues, but it conspicuously lacks the Palestinian/Israeli issue. Spending time watching her now numerous video interviews will be a must.

Now freed from my responsibility of caring for my mom with her passing, I'm certainly going to work for a campaign, Gabbard's being my likely choice since Sanders already has plenty of help here in Oregon. Months ago, I wrote and copied to MoA the content I sent to Gabbard's campaign about the basic constitutional issues we discuss here frequently, but I've yet to receive a formal reply beyond thanking me for my input/interest and would I consider donating, which is why I haven't posted the reply as I promised.

Congress refuses to do its duty to impeach TrumpCo, so it's up to the electorate to remove him and his criminal accomplices from power at the polls in 2020. IMO, Sanders and Gabbard are athwart the Current Oligarchy's path, which is why I favor them since I view neither as the lesser of two evils, which well describes the rest of the D-Party candidates except Gravel.

Posted by: karlof1 | Jun 27 2019 23:33 utc | 91

Aloha @87

If you want to know about and understand US foreign policy or have any hope of influencing that policy you need to take an interest in the Council of Foreign Affairs.

I have frequently read and sought out articles on their journal, I would imagine b and many commentators here have done so.

If you want a President that can deal with foreign affairs then they have to engage with the foreign affairs establishment and do it before you become President otherwise you don't stand a chance.

Tulsi Gabbard Answers To Her CFR (Council On Foreign Relations) Association/Concerns

Posted by: ADKC | Jun 27 2019 23:38 utc | 92


Thanks for letting us know that:

> Gabbard hasn't been forthright about her position on Israel-Palestine (you haven't found her position after some searching);

> the Gabbard Campaign didn't get back to you with a formal reply (I guess that means you got an acknowledgement but no substance);

By the way, since you believe that Congress has a "duty to impeach TrumpCo", you might like to know that Gabbard is against impeachment - just like Pelosi and Hillary.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Jun 27 2019 23:55 utc | 93

@ADKC 94

Your last paragraph has a serious flaw and it’s called Trump.

In fact, he diminishes all other arguments of a traditional requisites of a President. That is because the oligarchy has brazenly moved away from all past restraints and openly buy and place a candidate that bends to their wishes and carries out their agenda.

The only requisite in this era is loyalty to Israel and Zionism. Period. Everything else is fair game. And that is true not only here but in the rest of the western realm. Case in point, Jeremy Corbyn.

Posted by: Uncle Jon | Jun 27 2019 23:56 utc | 94

Aloha @87

The rest of your post is exploiting two intentional misconceptions (intended to fool the casual reader).

The first is that Tulsi is anti-war. That is not the case. She is against the wasteful and unnecessary regime change wars. Also, any declaration of war must be justified. Tulsi never claimed to be anti-war. Her supporters tend to truncate her position to anti-war.

The second is she is from a military background. As I recall her family are American Somoa which is an American colony in the middle of the Pacific. Her ethnic background is Samoan (Polynesian); she is not Hispanic or European. She is a member of a colonised people.

American Samoa is the most military part of the US. As I understand it there are traditionally far more members of the US military iin American Samoa than in any other part of America, per head of population. Tulsi comes from a military background which would be fairly common amongst American Samoans. I believe that it is noted that American Samaons serve with honour; a not infrequent outcome for colonised people (the British Empire being a case in point; the UK armed forces still rely on Gurkhas to this day).

It is just sheer hypocrisy to accuse and dismiss Tulsi of being MIC. Her service and that of her family puts to shame that of Bush, Clinton, Trump, McCain, Bolton, etc.

The second major challenge (after foreign policy) for any President is dealing with the military. The fact that she has served and is from a military family means that she will be better able to do this.

Now take your junk post and do one!

Posted by: ADKC | Jun 28 2019 0:02 utc | 95

From Jerusalem Post:

“She stressed that she co-sponsored a House resolution reaffirming US commitment to “a negotiated settlement leading to a sustainable two-state solution that re-affirms Israel’s right to exist as a democratic, Jewish state and establishes a demilitarized democratic Palestinian state living side-by-side in peace and security.”

That resolution also reaffirmed the US commitment to Israel and the US policy of vetoing one-sided or anti-Israel UN Security Council resolutions, and condemned boycott and divestment campaigns that target Israel.”

Although she has condemned settlement activity, but sponsoring a bill to condemn BDS is a nonstarter in my book. Too bad.

Posted by: Uncle Jon | Jun 28 2019 0:05 utc | 96

ADKC @90

Frank Buchanan

I'm sure that I've seen the Frank Buchanan story before. But the anti-democratic neoliberal and neocon agenda is well known and mentioned at MoA a lot.

you disagree because you are imagining ...

Please don't mangle my imaginings.

Not voting is not a protest ...

I'm not stopping you or anyone else from voting. And (again!) I am not advocating NOT voting. I am simply explaining the con. The "Democracy Works!" trap. Those who that push the lie that a vote for a certain candidate will fix everything are doing a disservice. Voting is not sufficient. That has been proven already.

missing the opportunity to advocate for the policies of no war

How exactly am I unable to advocate for no war if I don't support Gabbard?

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Jun 28 2019 0:11 utc | 97

Uncle Jon @96

Not a serious flaw just a misunderstanding on your part.

I am talking about what a person would need to do to successfully engage on US foreign policy, if they intended to become President. It's about doing the groundwork in a field that you are concerned about.

Trump proves the point. He knows nothing about US foreign policy, therefore, he is just straw in the wind.

You are just talking about getting elected. We already know that Beto O'Rourke would be ideal next President for TPTB. Hopefully, the American people still have some gumption.

Posted by: ADKC | Jun 28 2019 0:15 utc | 98

At this point it is the process of the electoral campaign that is important. The actual vote? Not so much. Yes, Sanders would have immediately sold out if he had somehow won in 2016, but it is indisputable that his campaign completely changed political discourse in the US and put the elites on the defensive. Likewise every Dem candidate running now will sell out once they are sworn in. There is no debate whatsoever about that. With that being the case, though, Gabbard's campaign all by itself can add new dimensions to the political discourse in the US if the population is mobilized by it.

Harbor no illusions: Nothing short of a revolution will dislodge the corporate elites from power. A successful Gabbard campaign can bring us a step closer to that revolution, though.

Posted by: William Gruff | Jun 28 2019 0:17 utc | 99

Thanks for the excellent (as usual) report, b.
JR, Sunny, you both make important points and I generally agree with them; there is indeed only a modicum of democracy in US presidential elections, where the result is determined by special electors and not the general, voting public (I continue to vote [only "third" party], since the popular vote at least can used a sort of gauge for what actual public opinion is [though even the popular vote is suspect, given rampant gerrymandering, etc.]).
My own concern about Gabbard is close in line with JR's; her military background (which is still quite recent) is worrisome, for me mainly because she never held commanding rank (e.g. Colonel, General, etc). That's important, given what is suspected about how the Executive branch is actually run; there is an obvious hierarchy, and I have a feeling once Gabbard is acquainted with the president's real position within that hierarchy, she will snap to attention and carry out her orders despite what may have been said during a political campaign. This is an established pattern by now, that goes back at least as far Bill Clinton's slide (or slither) to the right. Futhermore, Gabbard has yet to demonstrate a firm position on the Zionist entity and its depredations.
I think the reason the US MSM is shutting her down early is that the word from the Lords of Capital has come down; there can't even be the suggestion of anyone (with a military background to boot, no pun intended ^_^) advocating an antiwar agenda, even though Gabbard hasn't necessarily said "end all wars," rather only (as JR points out) the "unnecessary" ones. If the peace bug starts spreading, the Lords will ultimately lose control, and there's no effing way they're gonna let that happen on their watch.
I think it was Zach Smith further up the thread who asked for an alternative, failing Gabbard; of candidates from the two main (corrupt) parties, Mike Gravel, the former senator from AK would be the one (though he will be dismissed as "too old").
Great stuff, barflies.

Posted by: robjira | Jun 28 2019 0:23 utc | 100

next page »

The comments to this entry are closed.