Nice piece by Taibbi challenging all the smear campaigns that apparently a lot of posters in this thread have already internalized : https://www.rollingstone.com/politi...lsi-gabbard-bernie-sanders-trump-2020-838156/ I like the ending thought :
I'm doing the Yang Gang! Only guy I donated to so far, although I'm still officially undecided. Honestly I don't even agree with all his policies, and I'm not even sure he'd make a good president. So in the end I may not vote for him. But I'm boosting Yang simply because he's the only one talking about a few issues that literally everyone else is ignoring or misdiagnosing. At the very least he needs to be in the mix so his ideas get a seat at the table. I'm undecided on UBI, but I am intrigued with it as a replacement for the myriad of expensive and complicated social safety net programs that are burdened by bureaucracy and fraud. These are inefficient and antiquated programs that are not fit for the 21 century. Just simplify it and streamline it with a clean $1,000 per month to everyone. My only beef with Yang's UBI is that he's making seniors chose Social Security or UBI. Personally I'd like to see seniors get both since they can't work. Other two areas where Yang stands out is college and the opioid epidemic. As far as I've seen, he's the only one advocating the decriminalization of opioids as the core strategy to reduce addiction. And he's the only candidate I've seen who is going in the opposite direction from free college. His take is that college is over prescribed, it's too expensive and it's not going to necessarily meet the job demands of the future. He'd much rather see more kids going into trades like plumber, electrician, HVAC etc ... because those jobs will be a lot harder to automate since they require high variability and non repetitive motor skills. He's an interesting guy. People are in love with Elizabeth Warren over her policy specifics, but she's not even in the same ballpark as Yang. He's the only candidate that has a specific policy position on cryptocurrency. He's the only advocating making our data a property right so corporations can't buy and trade this stuff without our knowledge and compensation. The downside of him having so many policy specifics is that it's easy to find things I don't like. For example he's pro nuclear energy. He also has some questionable views on government regulating "fake news" which to me sounds a lot like an infringement on 1st amendment.
There are about 200 million adults in the USA (give or take) That is 200,000,000 X 1,000 X 12 = 2.4 Trillion dollars per year. The total federal spending for FY15 was 3.8 trillion. You basically have to get rid of all current mandatory spending (cutting some military spending would help). https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/spending/ Aren't opioids legal already, with a prescription? And hey you get 1,000 a month to help you pay for college or technical school. Warren bores you with details if you read her policy points, I disagree with some of her proposals, like the yearly capital tax, but she does give a lot of detail. Yang is mostly fluff, not unusual for most campaigns, but come on we can not compare him (or anyone) to Warren, she did her work.
Nah... She's a Russian tool, even if she's not aware of it: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/20...20-democratic-candidate-tulsi-gabbard-n964261 The same day, conservative writer Hunter Derensis noted on Russia Insider, "In line with her thinking on Syria, she lacks the anti-Russian stance of other Democratic politicians. 'How does going to war with Russia over Syria serve the interest of the American people?' she mentioned in a tweet. Gabbard has also supported Trump's diplomatic summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un in one of her multiple appearances with Tucker Carlson." That story was headlined, "Heroic Tulsi Gabbard Will Run on Her Sensible Foreign Policy. Expect Democrats, Faux Progressives to Squeal." In articles on the Russian sites, Gabbard is described as a "rebel," who is "straight-talking" and a "heroic" candidate who will "shake up" the establishment. -------------------------------------------------- Experts in Russian on-line propaganda say Gabbard appeals to pro-Russian sites because her positions —and her appeal as an outsider in her own party — can be used to create division among Democrats. Former FBI agent Clint Watts, author of "Messing with the Enemy: Surviving in a Social Media World of Hackers, Terrorists, Russians, and Fake News," said Gabbard has past or present positions on several issues that would be attractive to the Russian propaganda machine, and she is already popular with the U.S. "alt-left." Besides her views on Syria, she responded to reports of Russian interference in the 2016 election by saying the U.S. had interfered in foreign elections too. The language used to laud Gabbard is reminiscent of Russian media promotion of Jill Stein, the U.S. Green Party candidate for president in 2012 and 2016. Stein received favorable coverage from the same outlets and also benefited from Russian troll accounts. https://www.businessinsider.com/tul...efended-tucker-carlson-glenn-greenwald-2019-1 GRUenwald frequently appears on Fox News and in the past few years has often slammed Democrats for aggressively pursuing the Russia investigation in association with President Donald Trump. In GRUenwald's most recent interview with Carlson, he explicitly denies political support for Gabbard, while going on to to suggest a deeper conspiracy behind the criticism of her. Carlson has previously given Gabbard hospitable spotlights,following her conversations with President Trump where she advocated against foreign intervention in Syria and following Trump's strike on Syria, where Gabbard again advocated against intervention.
We did make a deal with Stalin to fight Hitler. As they say, when you go very far right or left, you end up in a similar place. Pacifist are useful tools for Putin.
Tulsi is pretty much the definition of an agent of influence - like Jill Stein Call her useful idiot if you prefer. This does not mean she is a "russian agent" as in working for russia. Stein is really the perfect example. Her "both sides" rhetoric on carbon has directly assisted a corrupt GOP in undoing vast amounts of Obama era environmental legislation. Stein really couldn't have helped out more if she was on the payroll of Big Coal and Putin, yet she is supposedly a green leader
Given the context, that she didn't express outrage that Russia was meddling in the US election seems, at the very least, weird. How does this apply here? Who are we making a deal with to fight who? And so are Russian apologists... Carlson and GRUenwald defended her. That's a very, very weird (Moscow zip code) similar place.
That's really the key here. Why does a Dem candidate share so many Kremlin views? It plays to the whole dems are just as bad as gop narrative and we have just seen how badly that can damage the country One could be forgiven for thinking her main purpose is to damage Dem candidates, which also seemed to be Stein's main mission I mean I get it. Stein probably really believed in her mission to bring the DNC around to zero carbon $$ But her naivety meant she got played. She helped achieve the opposite result!
I take issue with this line: '[Gabbard is] Exhibit A of a disturbing new media phenomenon that paints people with the wrong opinions as not merely “controversial,” but vehicles of foreign influence.' There have been stage whispers for years regarding Gabbard and her relationship with Russia. Long before she was running for president. We also know that Bernie was helped by Russia. That's not disputable. It's not even a knock on Sanders; I very strongly doubt he had any idea. But the Kremlin was desperate to avoid a Clinton presidency and has routinely sought to plant seeds of discord among the left. There can be little doubt that Stein benefited from this, but I've never seen any proof. Trump seems different in that he had actual ties to the Russian government as opposed to just being an agent of discord. I realize that this stuff can sound quite conspiracy theorist. (I was always somewhat dubious until I heard the Reply All podcasts where they interviewed people directly involved in disinformation campaigns, not pundits but actual players.) But ignoring foreign influence on our politicians is dangerously pollyannish.
I was fumbling with this thought in my post but I think there are two types of foreign influence at play. The first is when a foreign government tries to sow discord. For example, we know the Russians supported Bernie to hurt Hillary's standing among the Left. This is quite well documented. But it also works in places like anti-vaxx, Jade Helm, and things like scheduling Black Lives Matters protests at the same time and location as gun activist demonstrations. (Russia actually did this in Florida.) The second is when they support an actual candidate. We know for a fact that Trump is an example of this and we suspect that Jill Stein and Tulsi Gabbard are too.
Bullshit. If the Russian bots use her and her campaign, there is little she can do but chug along. She points it out and she risks losing support. But if she accepts it, than it looks like she is siding with Russia. Yeah, but for you, you don't make a bit distinction between "working for Russia" and somebody getting assistance, knowingly or unknowingly. And you are not alone. There are people all over who will jump all over Gabbard if she doesn't fall on her sword. Yeah, I don't know what is going on with her. Geez, it really seems like she took her position and let it corrupt her.
But then there is "support." What does that actually mean? In real terms, if they wanted to ******** thing up, can you see how they would created organizations and over years let them do a few things here and there, and then one year, pump a lot of money to one or two candidates, run a lot of social media bots, make it not quite obvious/very clear, that they are supporting said candidate when said candidate is not supporting Russia at all. Yes, that is conspiracy theory, but is based on how Russia's discord of US politics works.
The fact that some Democrats view her anti war/intervention positions as divisive says more about them than Gabbard. I remember a time not that long ago when the non interventionist rhetoric was mainstream in the Democratic party. Go back to the 2006 mid terms and every Democrat was running ads with Gabbard's talking points. As for Tucker Carlson, I think it's great that he's given Gabbard some "hospitable spotlights". I'll blow your mind here. Maybe just maybe it's because Carlson agrees with her on this issue and not because he's part of some devious Russian funded anti Democrat conspiracy. A few days ago Carlson criticized Trump on his show for the Iran warmongering. I would argue that Carlson has demonstrated some broader consistency on this issue that goes beyond the Democratic primary. In fact if you look at polling, this is one of the unique areas where there may be some overlap between the American left and American right. But of course, God forbid that someone try to build some bipartisan consensus on something positive. For once I wish these media hacks would attack Gabbard on the substance. Who cares if Russia likes her? Obviously they're going to like anyone that promotes a less aggressive US foreign policy. I don't even understand why this is shocking or unsettling.
She's anti "regime change", not anti-intervention. She was a big fan of Russia's intervention in Syria. TBF I think her politics have less to do with Russia and more to do with hating Muslims.
Or maybe it's the fact that she's a decorated combat medic who's seen several American soldiers blown into pieces. And probably quite a few Iraqis too. I'm sure that couldn't possibly have anything to do with it ...
Just in case this info is needed: https://www.mintpressnews.com/nethe...elmets-over-likely-links-to-terrorism/249447/ "A report by the Netherlands’ Foreign Affairs Ministry found Dutch funding given to the group had fallen into the hands of extremist groups and had been used in illegal black market transactions."
Nah. Carlson and GRUenwald like her. That seals the deal for me. Besides, it is not as like there aren't other non-interventionist/limited interventionism candidates with more than 1% polling in the race.
This is true in a mechanical way, but I still maintain it is rather odd that a dem candidate shares so many talking points with the Kremlin. it is of course true that the Kremlin has always played both sides of the field and no country is more aware of this than germany where Moscow has long supported the far left as well as far right. Indeed it has now of course emerged in Austria that surprise surprise, palms were crossed with silver in the miraculous rise of the far right Horse apples! I just made the explicit distinction by choice of terminology. An agent of influence is precisely someone like Stein who, despite supposedly being a great green environmentalist, thought it was a super idea to show up in Moscow as the guest of that well known green activist Putin. I mean what the hell was she even doing, if not to try and seek advantage? It's no difference to the NRA being over there, or Aaron Banks being up in it. I don't say these people are all paid by Putin (although Banks likely was) - i am saying they are exploited because they are useful A lot of these people are not very clever and can easily be co-opted by proximity to power. I mean I also don't think that the NRA clowns had the idea to become Russian agents. But for such international naïf s are just to easy to play or corrupt.