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 NJ.com 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 — ....

Duh!

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

Comments
« previous page

Since there are not global meetings to reduce militarism, let me provide some current G20 quotes from world leaders about finance

At the G20 Xi. Putin and Modi got together and let me provide the Modi quote
"
Modi said that it is in the common interests of India, China and Russia to uphold multilateralism and international law and rules. The three countries should strengthen communication and coordination in such areas as global governance reform, regional security and counter-terrorism, he said
"

At the G20 Xi "...proposed that the G20 keep pace with the times and improve global governance.

We should strengthen the multilateral trade system and conduct necessary reforms of the World Trade Organization (WTO) to make it more effective in implementing its principles of opening markets and promoting development, Xi said.

He stressed the need to ensure that the financial safety net has enough resources, and that the global financial architecture has fairer representation.

He also urged the G20 to implement the Paris Agreement on climate change, and to improve energy, environmental and digital governance.
"
At the G20 there was also a meeting of the BRICS leadership with the following quotes from their meeting
"
The leaders of other BRICS countries agreed that the world today is full of uncertainties, as the international community faces challenges such as the rise of unilateralism and protectionism, the weakening of and destruction to international trade rules and the WTO, and the urgent need to strengthen the inclusiveness of development.

BRICS countries need to strengthen coordination, more actively play a leading role, safeguard multilateralism and rules-based international trading system, promote fair and sustainable patterns of development and trade based on mutual respect, and develop a more balanced international trade negotiations agenda, so as to play an even bigger role in boosting common prosperity and world economic growth, they agreed.
"

I don't read anywhere at the G20 where these folks were proposing reducing military capabilities but I sure read a lot about going from A to B directly

Posted by: psychohistorian | Jun 29 2019 2:01 utc | 201

Thanks to all on this thread, as usual! Jackrabbit, at first I was totally opposed to your view, and rather than not voting this time around (so often disappointed in the resulting realization that I had been completely fooled) I thought maybe I can overlook some imperfections - but I can't overlook what Aloha had to present, and I haven't seen any counterpoints to her post, just a lot of personal insults.

I am remembering, as should we all, that we have been fooled before. Certainly Tulsi has been saying and doing all the right things. Right now, and as (it seems to me) that little pressure cooker valve that wobbles and lets the steam escape. And I am thinking that her policies look wonderful and she seems sincere. So did Obama. And even after his terrible first term people were still being fooled by him. What a waste of our highest ideals those eight years have been! So this will be one of the few times I will disagree with Grieved; harm is done if we just close our eyes and gabble and get dismayed when she doesn't get chosen - she's the new Bernie (he's the old one regalvanized). I don't want another huge disappointment for the good people who want to see their best hopes realized, the next wave of innocents. It is too exhausting; it has to stop somehow!

I can't support or vote for that to happen again. Our young people deserve better!

What we really have to go on are her votes. People, go back and scroll to Aloha's post. Are her facts correct? I'm sorry, I can't access the Haaretz article. Perhaps someone can paraphrase what it is saying. Thank you, Aloha, for posting. It's hard to go against the stream, but oh dear, not over the cliff again!

Posted by: juliania | Jun 29 2019 2:11 utc | 202

Sorry, I really didn't mean to make a pun on the candidate's name. Just me having a senior moment.

Posted by: juliania | Jun 29 2019 2:14 utc | 203

juliania

@109 I provided a link to the Haaretz article that is not behind a paywall.

Also, please see my comment @202.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Jun 29 2019 2:21 utc | 204

Thanks Jackrabbit, but I get half a sentence and then a message that I will need to subscribe before reading further.

Posted by: juliania | Jun 29 2019 3:32 utc | 205

Oh, sorry, Jackrabbit, you are correct. I missed your link, thanks!

Posted by: juliania | Jun 29 2019 3:35 utc | 206

Kamala Harris is a female Obama without the grandiose speeches. Expect the same deflated balloon and betrayal.

Posted by: Circe | Jun 29 2019 3:52 utc | 207

Well, it is hard for me, I confess, to have hopeful ideas about any of the candidates, since all that they represent for me is that money makes the wheels go around. There are so many hidden influences on the political scene that even parsing the speeches of other world leaders than those in the US is fraught with difficulty. We are losing faith in government, and that is sad.

I have no axe to grind here, I simply wish for everyone to have their say and produce their evidence. I hope I'm wrong because I fear the disillusion of our young people and the consequences thereof. I was so hopeful for Obama; I cried when he won thinking a great weight had been lifted from the US conscience, that his generation and younger voters would right all the wrongs and restore this nation's pride. I still can't believe his betrayal. And I, I voted for him. He not only continued to wage war, he waged war on his own people, preferring the elite, the bankers, the big corporations over ordinary citizens, wrecking the lives of students, making health care the property of the insurers - on and on.

I have no answers. Only that we need to get money out of politics, out of elections, have a verifiable, hand checked, hand counted ballot. That we do not have these things is criminal. I don't want to see a woman, or a person of color, or a gendered this or that person be the first of his/her/their sort elected. I want to see a POOR person elected - somebody burdened by a student loan or unpayable hospital bill or a street person even! Somebody real! Sure, I'm a bit crazy - okay, a crazy person! (Not me, I wasn't born here.)

Maybe if less people vote next time, things will change. I don't at all blame anyone for the choices they make; it is so hard now to know what to do. Peace to all.

Posted by: juliania | Jun 29 2019 4:32 utc | 208

Circe @ 209 said;"Kamala Harris is a female Obama without the grandiose speeches. Expect the same deflated balloon and betrayal."

Absolutely!!!

Posted by: ben | Jun 29 2019 4:47 utc | 209

j@ 210: No, you are NOT crazy, just a good person with a lot of company...

Posted by: ben | Jun 29 2019 4:50 utc | 210

"clashed over how aggressively to target the Taliban." is a straight out lie. Gabbard said we need to bring the troops home and stated the fact that the Taliban was not involved with 9/11.

Posted by: Jason | Jun 29 2019 5:02 utc | 211

karlof1 189: Besides spoils vs merit system, there is quite a different aspect of political staff: Assuriing and controlling that every department of the administration is working according to the political will of the elected leaders. I wonder why there are so many theories about deep state and permanent government if the most obvious explanation is in the nature of big government institutions. That does not exclude any further mighty influences of interest groups and political networks: But how will you get rid of them if there is not even control of the lower levels of your administration?
If this was a military campaign - where is the officer corps, and where are the rank and file? Are wars won by field commanders alone?
Another question is: How will progressive and independent groups ever manage to overcome the rigged voting system unless they form pressure groups in every county and push for repair measures? Which in turn might be the starting activity of forming a permanent political grassroots organisation all over the country. Not a party, not a one-point-initiative, but a MOVEMENT as a permanent institution.

Posted by: franziska | Jun 29 2019 7:17 utc | 212

Richard Steven Hack @ 194 says:

She has no chance - because she has no money behind her. Trump had money behind him which is why the Republicans couldn't stop him being nominated

yeah, there's the rub. the price tag for entering the oval office escalates with each new contender. i believe Obama broke the billion dollar threshold. so, bidding starts somewhere beyond those nine zeroes...

Posted by: john | Jun 29 2019 11:22 utc | 213

Sanders nearly got the Dem nomination in 2016 without big donors, and he would have gotten it if it hadn't been stolen from him. All on the strength of small sums donated by lots and lots of ordinary people. A president can be elected without big money from big donors.

Posted by: lysias | Jun 29 2019 11:43 utc | 214

lysias says:

A president can be elected without big money from big donors

yeah, perhaps it's within the realm of possibilities, but 'nearly' and 'would have if' don't cut the mustard.

Posted by: john | Jun 29 2019 11:53 utc | 215

All here know about the study that shows that the public interest in the US is never represented and has basically no impact? For readers perhaps

summary, quartz

https://qz.com/200622/ordinary-americans-are-powerless-but-the-us-isnt-really-an-oligarchy/

paper PDF

https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf

Circe wrote.

Kamala Harris is a female Obama without the grandiose speeches. Expect the same deflated balloon and betrayal.

Yes, because she cannot be anything different. Or if one likes, her characteristics and positive qualities make her fit for the role, thus accepted. She is not the outcome of a ‘grass roots’ or ‘powerful, moneyed, influential dissent’ movement or lobby - she is just one face on the panel of Dem. candidates expressing this or that.

She is part of a play of political charade. Which does not mean she is complicit or sneaky, or even that the whole show is planned. It evolves organically: New faces, women, not white, young, are needed, we have to give voice to the xyz and their opinions etc. etc. Follows Occasio-Cortez who is labelled as ‘Hispanic’ (I read the dems had an audition and she was picked, but that was on a way-out conspiracy site), Ohman labelled as Muslim, with the garb to match, and Gabbard, from the colonial outposts, who even fought for the colonial master (in service) and has a Hindu (aka ‘different’) ethnicity/religion or whatever the point is.

What does all this do for poverty, hungry children, in the US? For young ppl suiciding, for opioid addiction, for crumbling infrastructure, for lack of medical care, ppl being crushed and knocked away by illegitimate debt, and the perpetual war machine?

Nothing.

Posted by: Noirette | Jun 29 2019 14:04 utc | 216

- correction, apologies - i copy paste my posts in and here there is a sentence stupidly missing, after Kamala Harris (circe quote), should have appeared: This applies in first place to Gabbard and others -- etc.

Posted by: Noirette | Jun 29 2019 14:18 utc | 217

She is part of a play of political charade. Which does not mean she is complicit or sneaky, or even that the whole show is planned. It evolves organically: New faces, women, not white, young, are needed, we have to give voice to the xyz and their opinions etc. etc. Follows Occasio-Cortez who is labelled as ‘Hispanic’ (I read the dems had an audition and she was picked, but that was on a way-out conspiracy site), Ohman labelled as Muslim, with the garb to match, and Gabbard, from the colonial outposts, who even fought for the colonial master (in service) and has a Hindu (aka ‘different’) ethnicity/religion or whatever the point is.

What does all this do for poverty, hungry children, in the US? For young ppl suiciding, for opioid addiction, for crumbling infrastructure, for lack of medical care, ppl being crushed and knocked away by illegitimate debt, and the perpetual war machine?

Nothing.
Posted by: Noirette | Jun 29, 2019 10:04:47 AM | 218


What would you suggest we do differently? Give up on organising a leftist political subculture within the system because the system is rotten? What then, shall we burn down Congress and allow Trump PfL status? Re-organise 350 million disparate peoples into communes?

I snorted coffee out my nose when you suggested AOC was chosen to be the model "hispanic" by Democrats. It's silly for you to get information from way out conspiracy websites...

Posted by: donkeytale | Jun 29 2019 15:01 utc | 218

Franziska @214--

You ask excellent, perceptive questions. Movement building I've written about numerous times to provide the historical background to what was the biggest and most successful movement within the USA--The People's Populist Party from 1880-1900--and highly suggest reading Lawrence Goodwyn's history about them, Democratic Promise: The Populist Moment in America, as it contains the guide to grassroots movement building.

How to deal with bureaucratic institutions that once created take on a life of their own is a thorny issue. Max Weber wrote about it as did Robert Merton in his important Social Theory and Social Structure. To dissect the problem and propose a solution is a long undertaking that's been done by Merton and others. Societal complexity is also an issue as humans tend to solve problems by introducing greater levels of complexity that will eventually reach a point where the increasing complexity generates negative returns instead of the prior positive results--see Joseph Tainter's The Collapse of Complex Societies and William Catton's Overshoot: The Ecological Basis of Revolutionary Change.

I apologize for having to drop book references instead of writing a lengthy detailed answer to the myriad important questions you pose. Before the government can be reformed the movement to generate the reform must be created and gain power which is what the 19th Century Populists realized and concentrated their efforts on from 1872-1886, when they finally became a nationwide political force. Yes, they made mistakes, which is why their movement eventually failed to realize its ultimate goal and why we're beset with the massive headache that's the Outlaw US Empire today. As you read the debate here, there's no agreement as to who is worthy of forming and leading such an effort as it seems to be top->down driven, instead of bottom->up as it ought. Sanders built some vestige of a movement but it's currently disparate and suffers from BigLie Media blackout, which the Populists countered back in their day by publishing their own newspapers and related materials. The 2020 election cycle promises to involve far more people than 2016, but just how that evolves we must wait and see.

Posted by: karlof1 | Jun 29 2019 16:35 utc | 219

donkeytale asks:

Give up on organising a leftist political subculture within the system because the system is rotten? What then, shall we burn down Congress and allow Trump PfL status? Re-organise 350 million disparate peoples into communes?

well, yes, no, and yes. Cynthia McKinney even has a plan. she needs volunteers.

Posted by: john | Jun 29 2019 16:36 utc | 220

Posted by: karlof1 | Jun 29, 2019 12:35:20 PM | 221

Movement building I've written about numerous times to provide the historical background to what was the biggest and most successful movement within the USA--The People's Populist Party from 1880-1900--and highly suggest reading Lawrence Goodwyn's history about them, Democratic Promise: The Populist Moment in America, as it contains the guide to grassroots movement building.

Yes, in what must be hundreds of pieces by now I've touted movement-building as the necessary mode of action, and of course the alternative to morbid electoralism. (And with any leaders rising organically from within the movement, rather than pseudo-political celebrities handed down to the masses from above.) I find that the vast majority of "political" people have never even heard of it, or have a grossly attenuated notion of it.

But of course it's beyond the pale anyway, since it requires a commitment as a way of life, many years of hard work, and worst of all it offers no instant gratification. That's why there's no interest in America.

Posted by: Russ | Jun 29 2019 16:56 utc | 221

Russ @223--

Interesting how your critique notes the changing values that occurred within American society/culture over the past 140 years, some of them certainly shaped and molded by top->down forces, but many also the product of the overall modernization of life that altered its traditional modes.

Posted by: karlof1 | Jun 29 2019 18:20 utc | 222

bjd @40--

BRAVO!!!

Posted by: karlof1

Seconded. But it's a tough lesson to have to learn.

Posted by: English Outsider | Jun 29 2019 18:56 utc | 223

Those who disregard Tulsi because she is not 110% extremists enough and then claim those who see the best chance in her are deluded, are the ones who are trapped in their rabbit hole..
It is a good thing, a big plus, that she is not extremist in her views. Without that, she would not be votable for the huge majority of Amercians. And even more a target in this storm that is brewing.
She speaks about what most Amercians badly want and need, and that is NOT some extreme Agenda, but common sense.

Some here seem to think they know better than all the "stupid voters" what they need. But extremist left (or right) wing agendas can only be forced onto the people against their will.
That believe of supremacy by those extremists pseudo intellectuals only leads where it always lead in history: Into left (or right) wing dictatorships. Where the political agenda of the days is claimed to be "scientificially proved". So those stupid "normal" people and voters can safely be ignored.

So either one accepts that most people dont want extremists, Culture revolution like havoc, destroying their own society. And is happy to go the democratic way: Of balanced, step by step development.
Or one does not give a shit about what the people care about, and only wants his own extremist worldview, fueled by hate and the believe of ones own supremacy to succed.

I choose democracy. That may not push my own standpoint as much as it could be pushed if i would not give a shit about others. But extremism only destroys, and is a narcicistic disorder incompatible with democracy and actual caring about other peoples needs.

So those that wait for the 110% canidate, wait forever.
Everyone else is happy there is someone like Tulsi, someone who can potentially bring a positive change.

Posted by: DontBelieveEitherPr. | Jun 30 2019 17:07 utc | 224

DontBelieveEitherPr. @226: she is not 110% extremists enough

Thanks for the propaganda screed. You've really illustrated my points about manipulation of the electorate very well.

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

@everyone else: please see my comment @202.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Jun 30 2019 20:17 utc | 225

Frances right-wing Le Figaro is taking a far less positive view of the yellow vest working people movement so it is not surprising the conservative paper only mentioned Tulsi Gabbard once, "she stood out because of her red vest, nothing about content". Welcome to the Theater of the Absurd, brought to you by MSM from around the world.

Posted by: GRK | Jul 1 2019 22:42 utc | 226

Jackrabbit @227

What you fail too see is how manipulated you have been.

You are all chewed up because Trump let you down but most of what Trump has done or attempted to do was set out before the election or clearly sign posted. Now I know that people may have hoped for better but the most important reason why Trump won was because Clinton was seen by many as worse.

We get it, you're intent on crushing Tulsi, who is actually a far better candidate than Sanders (another of your bete noire's) before she even has more than a slim chance (Tulsi only has only about 1%, or not much more, poll rating). Well, goody for you.

Unfortunately, as an observer I do not (at this stage) detect within Americans the same level of support for an end to wars or a fairer economy that was such a factor in the last 4 elections.

The real issue is not whether or not you want Tulsi to be the democratic candidate but whether or not you even want ending regime change wars debated. Tulsi Gabbard and Mike Gravel (who didn't make the panel) are the only candidates that will enable that debate to take place.

So your brave insightful move is to crush the only chance for a debate on ending regime change wars and instead champion Kamala Harris (the establishments choice).

Tulsi's record is far better, known (non obfuscated or hidden), with a track record (less evasions, less wobbles, less lies) than any of the Presidential candidates over the last 50 years (or longer). And this is the singular candidate you are motivated to attack?

Posted by: ADKC | Jul 3 2019 9:08 utc | 227

ADKC says:

Tulsi's record is far better, known (non obfuscated or hidden), with a track record (less evasions, less wobbles, less lies) than any of the Presidential candidates over the last 50 years (or longer)

does the name Cynthia McKinney STILL not resonate? do a little due diligence, dude, let's at least keep the record straight, for whatever it's worth.

unlike ms. McKinney, i imagine ms. Gabbard did sign the Israel support pledge, n'est-ce pas?

Posted by: john | Jul 3 2019 10:37 utc | 228

John @230

It was my intention (and I think this is clear if you read my post again) to compare Tulsi Gabbard (a person seeking to get the democratic nomination for President) with those individuals (Democratic & Republican) that were the actual nominated candidates for President over the last 50 years. Commonsense should indicate that I was not comparing Tulsi to every person in the last 50 years who actually threw their hat in the ring (if only because, like you, I have no idea who the vast majority of them were).

There is no requirement that members of Congress have to sign the pledge that you refer to. I understand that this pledge comes from a private organisation that goes around asking elected officials to sign their pro-Israel pledge. I have no idea whether Tulsi Gabbard signed or did not sign this pledge and neither do you; I would hope that she didn't. Perhaps, you need to do some due diligence?

Cynthia McKinney is a committed and principled person but she is not standing in this election. If she was I would be (as a non-American) supportive of her because I am supportive of the policies which she has espoused, just as I am of Tulsi Gabbard, Mike Gravel and Bernie Sanders.

If your intention was to compare Tulsi Gabbard and Cynthia McKinney because this would cast a shadow over Tulsi, well would Cynthia agree with that?

Posted by: ADKC | Jul 3 2019 13:17 utc | 229

ADKC @229

You are mischaracterizing my position to make it seem that I'm a Trump supporter with some kind of animus toward Gabbard.

I've explained my political journey in recent years @192. I've been very open about how my experience informs my cynicism toward the duopoly and any duopoly candidate. My political position is clearly described @106. I've advocated (many times here at MoA, and over many years) for citizen Movements and direct democracy as a means of circumventing the establishment's manipulation and control.

Furthermore, AS YOU KNOW, I've argued forcefully that Trump was selected by the Deep State to be President and that Hillary threw the election to Trump. That's certainly not a view held by any Trump supporter as it means that Trump is illegitimate.

My criticisms of Gabbard are based how narrowly focused is her criticism of the use of military power as well as my skepticism of the duopoly. This is most clearly explained @202.

You're repeated distortions of my positions highlights YOUR agenda.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Jul 3 2019 13:48 utc | 230

John @230

Just to add that I know that I am ignoring Cynthia McKinney's third party candidacy but, unfortunately, that's because Americans by and large, ignore third party candidates.

I'd really rather focus on policies but the American system is terribly on individuals which it treats as products/salespersons that have to convince the customer/voter to purchase. If the voter doesn't know what they want they really are doomed to get a bill of goods.

Personally, I think that the concern about the wars and economic well being that has been evident to varying degrees in every US election since 2004 has waned considerably and, consequently, Americans will end up having a choice between two establishment war types. Hopefully, I'll be proved wrong.

Posted by: ADKC | Jul 3 2019 14:00 utc | 231

Jackrabbit @232

But you were a Trump voter! And you do feel let down by Trump! And you can't accept that most of what Trump has done was in his policy statements or was sign-posted. That doesn't mean I'm accusing you of currently being a Trump supporter (and even if you were it would be the reasons that "you" supported Trump that would be important). But, you have reacted so badly to your experience that you reject the antitheses and for some bizarre reason leap straight on the Harris bandwagon, even though she is the quintessential establishment candidate.

Your position on Trump being selected by the Deep State (or rather the ideological framework) is most clearly set out on the Strategic Culture website. The reasoning that you rely on is really quite shallow and your key facts can be interpreted in a number of different ways. This indicates that you are instinctual rather than ideology; that's why donkeytale has warned you about where your journey may end.

And you are very committed to running down Tulsi Gabbard, why bother to obfuscate this? And you did strongly commit to Kamala Harris (even though is was clear that you knew nothing about her; again indicating your instinctual, rather than ideological approach).

I don't blame you for being opposed to the "duopoly" but you have swung into believing a third party would be a "solutiuon" when what really happen is the third party would also be coopted (if they were any sort of threat). The US election system is deeply flawed but it isn't changing anytime soon.

And you continually misrepresent people and put words in their mouth - you've done it to me on various occasions - so it's just hypocrisy to accuse others of the same.

And I have told you my agenda on a number of occasions it is not hidden. I am in favour of voting. I have given reasons for this which I have told you many times but I'll repeat:- the election provides an opportunity for collective engagement and policy debate and there is no other mechanism in America that enables Americans to do this, there is no other movement or forum in the US that facilitates this, opting out (isolationism) is a dead-end.

What you fail to see is that opposition by Americans collectively expressed by the only real mechanism available to them (the vote) can have an effect. A substantial vote against wars and for economic well being can have an effect. Unfortunately, as I stated @227 (the most important point I made) I no longer detect the same level of concern for ending the wars or for a fairer economy that was evident in the elections since 2004 (I really wish you had disagreed with me on that point, but you didn't). I believe that the election is heading for Trump vs Harris which will be an extablishment war candidate against another establishment war candidate. I hope that I am wrong.

Posted by: ADKC | Jul 3 2019 14:53 utc | 232

ADKC

that Cynthia McKinney, not Tulsi Gabbard, is the purest spirit of the true left to have ever graced the halls of congress was my only point. as far as i know.

but don't get me wrong...i'm thrilled by ANY voice out of Washington speaking out against wars, even just the illegal ones. but the Democratic party, like its Republican counterpart, is rotten to the core. if Gabbard is the real deal she'll never get the nomination. if she does she'll tow the line. that's how rotten systems work.

Posted by: john | Jul 3 2019 16:21 utc | 233

john @235

Easy for me to say (as a non-American) but it's up to Americans to change the system and until' they do you're stuck with the way things are.

I like Cynthia's the idea of "Powercells" - looks promising - anyone concerned that the system needs to change should get involved.

Posted by: ADKC | Jul 3 2019 17:33 utc | 234

ADKC @234

But you were a Trump voter!

There were plenty of people that voted AGAINST HILLARY. Those who did so are not "Trump voters", they are anti-Hillary voters.

I voted for Obama too. And supported the Green Party.

How many times do we have to go over this?

leap straight on the Harris bandwagon

I've already explained that I don't support any duopoly candidate. I thought that any disruption in the Democratic Party could be a good thing. But since you bring it up, I can update my view: I'm now thinking that the Biden-Harris exchange was a set-up since learning that an attorney working for Harris is connected to Hillary.

This kind of subtly-executed, insider manipulation should be expected from the fake democratic process. Much like Sanders sheep-dogging for Hillary who then throws the election to Trump.

you are very committed to running down Tulsi Gabbard ...

The pro-Sanders people said I was anti-Sanders. But the fact is, the duopoly is just a scam and ANY duopoly candidate is going to be flawed.

you continually misrepresent people and put words in their mouth

Funny (not) that you say this in a comment that misrepresents my views and smears my intentions.

Look, I've heard the cheer-leading bullshit before: You've gotta vote! You've gotta vote for so-and-so! Well no. Vote if you like but only citizen movements will actually change anything.

We see the same thing every election cycle from the "democracy works!" crowd: you can't change anything so just go along with the program.

I'm convinced that Empire and oligarchy poison democracy and that no democratic choice is allowed for the office of President. The illusion of democracy is maintained by the duopoly and "democracy works!" propaganda/promoters.

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

Tulsi Gabbard is not the end-all and be-all of the anti-war Movement. Her anti-war views are actually weak. But the "democracy works!" lobby want us to get real excited about a candidate. Doesn't really matter which - just as long as you chose a duopoly candidate.

As I favor citizen Movements, I also support Cynthia McKinney's powercells.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Jul 3 2019 18:50 utc | 235

ADKC says:

Easy for me to say (as a non-American) but it's up to Americans to change the system and until' they do you're stuck with the way things are

anonymously online anything is easy for anyone to say.

curiously, from where do you stem?

Posted by: john | Jul 3 2019 20:19 utc | 236

Jackrabbit @237

Funny, I've been re-looking at the Biden & Harris exchange and also been coming to the view that might well have been a set-up; was Biden angry or was he just biting his lip?

You supported Kamala Harris in your post @154. I don't think you really would support Harris if you knew anything about her but you were "cheer-leading" for "Harris" and have still not dis-associated yourself.

The connections between Harris and Clinton are well-known long before the debate, Kamala harris has long been regarded as Clinton's candidate. I appreciate that you may only have learnt about this recently. I would suggest that you didn't because you were more focused on disparaging Tulsi Gabbard and as a result gave a free-ride to a deeply entrenched establishment candidate.

IMO Tulsi Gabbard is a far better candidate than even Sanders and a vote for her would definitely be a protest against the establishment and a clear message about ending the regime change wars.

In the modern age, I am not aware that there has never been a pacifist stand for nomination (and, if they did, they stood no realistic chance of winning). The best you get are what are popularly called "anti-war" or "peace" candidates but what this always means are wanting to withdraw from wars or not wanting to engage with wars but never actually ruling out war. Tulsi has a better position on opposing/ending the wars than any of the other candidates - far, far better than Kamala Harris - but, this doesn't mean that she is a pacifist.

You imagine that I said that the US democracy works, but I never have. What I have said (and I really wish you would acknowledge instead of imposing your view of what I said) is something like:- That the collective engagement that the election provides is important because there is nothing else like that in the US, that the debate this enables is important, that the vote for policy positions matters is important, that voting can make a difference, that it is a mistake to opt-out and cut-off yourself off from this collective experience, that, at present, the vote is all you really have.

What I would add is that what I am effectively saying is that Americans as a collective body are actually incredibly weak and are heading for a disaster, that the biggest most cowardly thing for Americans to do is claim they were misled or betrayed by their leaders. Broadly speaking, a substantial number of American's know what they are voting for and get what they wanted and another substantial number of Americans don't care; it follows that the important issue for me is changing the minds of Americans and it further follows that it is what a candidate represents (not their personality) that is what is important to me.

I do understand your position and intentions; but, I am considerably older than you and I can assure you that not being engaged, not voting makes it far easier for TPTB to do what they want.

It's good that you support Cynthia McKinney's Powercells; you should get involved.

------

john @238

curiously, from where do you stem?

Europe (please no further questions). I don't think it right to comment on the US election without making it clear that I am not an American (at least periodically).

Posted by: ADKC | Jul 6 2019 12:46 utc | 237

I like Tulsi.

Posted by: StarryOrange | Jul 14 2019 4:13 utc | 238

« previous page

The comments to this entry are closed.