NBC News published a predictably viral story Friday, claiming that “experts who track websites and social media linked to Russia have seen stirrings of a possible campaign of support for Hawaii Democrat Tulsi Gabbard.”
Sometimes I find that looking back on the money - follow it back in time and in the present. Bill Moyers talks with Matt Taibbi and Chrystia Freeland on the One Percent’s Power and Privileges - this - back 2012 with a couple of years retrospective on the “bailouts” - Read: lies
More and more blatant, the press is putting not its thumb on the scale, but its giant sacrificial hog, to be sacrificed to the gods of Wall Street.
There does not need to be evidence, there do not need to be real sources; print it and the voters will obey: don’t vote for candidate x, because they are in cahoots with Russia. Or, as in the case of Sanders and Warren, if they have popular appeal, that means they are exactly the same as Trump.
Please realize: this is not new. This is not just this article. This is not just NBC. Do not treat the news as discrete pieces of information. See the trend. The more popular the progressives are, the more ruthless the media will be in insisting you are not allowed to vote for them.
About the only time we see Tulsi Gabbard mentioned is when something negative is posted about her, especially after she was one of the few politicians and only presidential candidate to take a strong stand against intervention in Venezuela.
The media whores have their companies agendas and real, honest, progressives will be vilified with terms like, she or he is too far left; he or she is not ----- ; he or she is not practical or electable; ad nauseum! fill in the blanks ____ of the name of any real progressive.
From Samantha Bee to MSNBC, all you see is Ms Gabbard being trashed, not by Republicans, but by Democrats. This is pure bullshit. I’m sure there is no connection between her being the only candidate speaking out about the MIC and the corporate news railing against her. Howard Shultz will get more airtime than Ms Gabbard. Remember, Tulsi quitting the DNC because they were being unfair to Bernie? Be nice if Bernie had an “enough of the damned emails” moment in return. The more they bad mouth her the more I’m likely to voter for her. For the first time in ages, my vote in South Carolina will actually matter to the Democratic Party and she’s getting my vote. Be nice if they found someone to run against Linseed now and all these candidates appeared with him/her during their trips to the state.
My point is that they are shifting away from the vague descriptors you note, that blend news with opinion, and are moving into territory that can be identified as libel and slander, careful to make sure the accusation isn’t specific enough to prove or disprove.
I have watched her occasionally, and I winced at the last show when she said:
“There are several exciting women running for president, and also Tulsi Gabbard,”
To me, she is way more exciting than any other woman running save for Warren who I’m also interested in more and more (and of course I’ll consider all the men too - I just read that Julian Castro says he wants to make Medicare for All is first action as president - devil is in the details, but that sounds better than many of the others running).
I’ve been pretty disappointed with the Daily Show too - they used to make fun of Bernie in ways that were not at all helpful and then Trevor Noah would do this crying voice “Oh Bernie we miss you” crap when Trump was elected. My wife still likes the show and it has its moments but I still get pissed off often (like when Obama got huge payments for speeches and Noah defends him because the black president should get his too).
As an aside, anyone who brings up Tulsi’s history of LGBT rights as a reason not to vote for her - this piece (https://medium.com/@kathrynrosefisher/im-lgbt-here-s-where-the-media-is-wrong-on-tulsi-gabbard-bb0fde008d16) shoots that argument to hell. I wouldn’t mind hearing some of her other supposed downsides addressed (torture, Hindu nationalism), but when I hear Tulsi give very direct no-nonsense statements on Venezuela - much better than those from Sanders, I feel like I can overlook a lot of things especially if she’s evolved on other items in addition to LGBT rights.
What I found even worse, in a story about the sexist treatment of women candidates, she said “Oh, Tulsi, honey, no.” Honey? Really? Railing against sexism then dismissing a woman by calling her “honey” knowing there is no word that more represents a woman being dismissed without merit. Here you go Sam using your own words, quit being a c**t towards another woman.
Whether there is concrete evidence for Russian support for Tulsi Gabbard or not, it certainly makes sense that authoritarian neofascist gangsters like Putin and Assad would support Gabbard. She is pretty much a victim of the creepy Duganist rabbit-hole that much of the “anti-war” left, hand-in-hand with the alt-right, has gone down.
That they would is unsurprising and completely uninteresting. She is just about the only person running who seems interested in somewhat following international law (I’d need to see details on just what she’d do with drones before I’d remove that ‘somewhat’) so obviously their positions appear more secure with her in the Whitehouse. In the long run it would be hard to say what would really happen if she become president, but I’d be willing to roll the dice with her way more than Trump or Clinton.
If only the rest of the Democratic field would spend some time in that rabbit hole talking with people like Tulsi - maybe they’d learn something.
She is a serious problem for the Bolton neocon chicken hawks. They have another John Kennedy on their hands and they know it. Therefore they had spent great effort to put together everything negative they could find, just in case she should run.
Got to stop her as soon as possible, using both Dems and Reps…
All this Russia-Russia stuff is very destructive to honest debate and analysis on the issues. Especially foreign policy. For example, I get the feeling that some Democrats are afraid to step forward and condemn this coup d’etat on Venezuela for the great violation of international and humanitarian law and standards that it is. Why? Because Russia is now siding with Venezuela. So, suddenly it’s o.k. to starve the People of Venezuela into submission, drive them into a bloody civil war - because Putin’s on their side? This is irrational. I’ve had enough of it. We should have another Iraq? Vietnam? Because Russia supports them? Well what about Donald Trump? Bolsonaro? Who are they siding with? Just a couple of racists and fascists? And one of whom, at least, is a pathological liar and sociopath (I wouldn’t be surprised if the other one is, too). Suddenly you believe him? Anyone with basic common sense should see that MSM has dug a deep hole for itself on this one. Not to mention that MSM - in cohorts with Clinton and the DNC - made Trump the GOP nominee. They did this knowing he was seriously compromised by interests in or with Russia - and we know this because Clinton made it an issue in her campaign against him. Does this get any more absurd? “I’m going to run for President against someone who’s an agent of Putin. So I’ll make an agent of Putin the GOP nominee. No problemo. And - BTW - I’m so patriotic, I love my country - the bottomline requirement for any POTUS” Is it me - or are the Clinton fans, in their own unique way, as dumb as the Trumpsters?