Home | About | Donate

Progressives Say Kamala Harris Team 'Inventing Conspiracies' About Tulsi Gabbard Rather Than Addressing Critiques

The Intercept 's Mehdi Hasan … tweeted, ‘Gabbard’s refusal to condemn Assad is awful and revealing …’”

Yeah, she’s only on record as calling Assad “a brutal dictator”. Gabbard should know she needs to say it at the start of every interview – and send it as a daily telegram (yes, a telegram) to Medhi Hasan.

(also pinging @LibWingofLibWing, @x1jodonn, @webwalk, @ToniWintroub, @Yunzer - nobody has to respond, but I thought you might be interested in my ranking change)

I will continue to defend Tulsi against incorrect or disingenuous attempts at smearing her on many of the topics people go after her. Unfortunately though, I’m not going to put her above Bernie any longer and any remaining contributions I make are going towards his campaign. I just can’t take her statements on Medicare for All any more. In a clip shown by the Humanist Report (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EiwXk_iacxo), she told Anderson Cooper:

If all of a sudden you are taking away their choice, that’s not a very American thing in my opinion […] If they [individual US residents is the implication, not the US as a whole] still choose that’s not what they want, they can get private insurance.

Excuse me? You signed the House M4A bill. You can say some nonsense about how there is still a role for private insurance in the house and senate versions of M4A, but this role is absolutely negligible and most insurers are going to go under. But you CANNOT say that you can opt out of M4A and get private insurance. I don’t care how short a time you have to explain yourself, you can’t say this. And if she has in mind you could not only get private insurance, you could avoid paying to taxes that support M4A - like a school voucher, then she is talking about the Public Option - an idea that I think is fundamentally broken. I don’t know for sure what she is saying on this, but either way she is wrong based on the clear duplicative coverage exclusion in both M4A bills.

Unfortunately Warren doesn’t have her head on straight any better - worse in fact. And Gabbard is much much better than Warren on foreign policy. So for me, it is now:

Sanders > Gabbard > Warren > Everybody else who has a chance that I would never vote for in the general (given I vote in CA and I’m not including Williamson or Yang who have zero chance of getting the nomination).

i would not vote for Yang.

i include Williamson with your three. She has the best platform as far is i’m aware, and the best comprehensive take on the holistic crisis humanity faces, and is a super sharp public speaker.

1 Like

I heard a Youtube ad for her which I quite liked actually - saying that in the same way that sickness is the absence of health, but the absense of sickness is not enough to define heatlh, we can’t be satisfied with the absense of war when we are tying to make a peaceful world - we have to actively do the things that cultivate peace, not just avoid war symptons - very cogent. I just can’t see her making it though and to a certain extent (and including how much I like Ralph Nader), I think people should be vetted with government experience in an actual elected office before going for president .

But I hope she stays in the debates as long as possible. Yang is mostly a disappointment for me, though I enjoyed his interview on Jimmy Dore a while back.

Good points, thanks .

Mike wants to be on TYT. He’s taking his cues from Tulsi haters over there: Ana Kasparian and Emma Vigeland.

Niko explains how Mike is distorting things:

1 Like

I lost all respect for Mike when he started blathering that Michael Tracey is a right wing, Trump troll.

1 Like

I don’t know that story, if you give me a hint on how to search for it or send a link, I’ll take a look. Mike is below other YouTubers I prefer which are mainly David Doel, Jimmy Dore, Kim Iversen, Kyle Kulinski and the guy who does Question Time (a new favorite, but he doesn’t put out videos very often). Mike has annoyed me at times, but I’m capable of making up my one mind on this just as he says.

I’m not a big fan of Niko House but I made it through the whole video. I don’t know what procedures an ophthalmologist does that Niko thinks aren’t covered by M4A, but they’ve been doing cataract surgeries under the current Medicare for many years. It is routine eye care services that are being added - obviously if someone’s vision is threatened by an illness, M4A is covering accepted procedures to treat the problem. And I’ve listened to that clip with Gabbard and Cooper a couple times and I can’t come away with a different conclusion - Tulsi’s language is not as helpful as it could be. She is playing into the hands of M4A’s opponents if you ask me. Sofia Zalvidar used clearer language than Tulsi, I don’t get why she can’t do better. Here is what she could have said this time:

If all of a sudden you take away people’s coverage of a procedure or type of therapy they are getting now, I’m against that and neither Medicare for All bill does that. But both bills do block private insurance from covering the same procedures and this means their role in an M4A world is certainly going to be reduced quite a bit. So to be clear, there is no opting out of an M4A system - everyone pays in and everyone can use the services covered. Private insurance is strictly supplemental for things like private hospital rooms, and … [I’m no expert on what isn’t covered so if chiropractors aren’t covered, they could be listed along with other procedures that people use that aren’t covered - is acupuncture covered? I doubt homeopathy is covered].

Niko says supplemental care allows for shorter wait times. What? How would that work? If the service is covered by M4A a private insurance firm cannot cover it and I sure hope a rich person can’t pay out of pocket in the US and get a doctor to attend to them before anybody else because that sets up two systems one for people paying out of pocket who are rich enough to do so. Those people will have to leave the country if you ask me.

I agree with Niko completely on Tulsi being solid on Assange and Manning and better than Bernie on commenting on Maduro. Just makes this poor language when she communicates on M4A that much more disappointing.

1 Like

It happened on Twitter quite a few weeks ago. It started off as an online battle between a Vox Youtube journalist, Carlos Maza, who is an out gay Latino man, and Steven Crowder, a right winger YouTuber who is a shock jock. Crowder liked to bash Maza and make fun of him.

Maza made a big deal about it and went on a twitter tirade demanding that YouTube kick Crowder off. They didn’t do that. But they did demonitize him.

Here’s an article on it.

As the article explains, several left wing advocates for free speech were not siding with Maza- seeing his desire to censor speech as something that always ends up setting a precedent to silent the left. Glenn Greenwald is the most prominent.

But others included Jimmy Dore and Michael Tracey. Jimmy did several videos. Tracey wrote an article. (edit- no, he did a video.)

Mike went bonkers on Twitter against Tracey. He accused him of being a right wing troll.

That was it for me with him. I’d started to notice he was echoing TYT a lot, as I had noticed was happening with David Doel and Kyle Kulinski. It turns out Kyle and Mike are on TYT’s channel. Doel seems to repeat whatever Ana says. Ana, by the way, is a >bleep<ing hypocrite, smearing Tulsi for not being anti-war enough but then praising to the high heavens Easy Peasy War-Warren who is so much more pro-war than Bernie and Tulsi. I can’t stand her. Seeing her so disgusts me I have to block anything with in it.

But Mike just went bonkers on Tracey- ignoring his arguments and saying that anyone who is for not censoring oboxious speech must be in support of the obnoxious speech and he just slandered Tracey.

I’ve noticed now with him, when I’ve seen him, that he, like another YouTuber I used to liked, Jamarl Thomas, is often spouting off opinions on things he OBVIOUSLY hasn’t really researched himself. With Jamarl it was going off on Tulsi for signing H.Res 246, but what was really sad, was that he obviously hadn’t read it and thought it was just S.1 repeated. All I can think is he got that from Ana.

Anyway, the whole exchange where Mike bashed Michael as a rightwing grifter is on Twitter and I’m not a Twitter fan and I don’t really know how to navigate it.

But I think this tweet may be where to start:


She always starts by talking about the need of everyone needing health care then says that Medicare for All is the Solution. She never says “other paths to get us there.” She is as blunt as anyone can be on saying the solution is Medicare for All.

But she then goes on to say the truth that there will still be a place for private insurance. She isn’t saying private insurance that will duplicate MfA or that will be a public option instead. She just says there’s a role for it and you shouldn’t take away people’s choice to do that.

I think Opthamalogists do laser surgery so you don’t need glasses. I don’t know if MfA would cover that?

I actually think that the private insurance supplementals that are in Europe and that Tulsi is thinking of are upgrades. MfA covers you hospital stay. Everyone pays in and everyone gets that. If you want to supplement that with a private plan that makes sure you get upgraded to a private room then you can buy that- MfA doesn’t take away that choice for you.

I don’t know the details, but say MfA pays for a second opinion on whether you should have a procedure. An upgrade would give you a third and fourth opinion.

I can imagine a million things like this. Everybody needs to be covered with a Single Payer system that covers all necessary medical needs. But Tulsi wants people to have the choice (I keep using that word to normalize her use of it with Cooper) to buy private plans that are congruent with MfA where they can upgrade- if they want it.

A lot of the phony candidates signed on to MfA this time around in Congress. But Tulsi has been a co-signer for years before Bernie made it popular.

Remember that Bernie had to tour the country to promote it in the Fall of 2017. He went out there and poured his heart out in townhall after townhall. This was the same time Hillary Goddamn Clinton was out doing her book tour and blaming Bernie and the Russians for her not being president.

Remember that? That’s when Bernie made MfA popular beyond the original Kucinich crowd that had been for it for years. It was only after that that people like Easy Peasy War-Warren and Ghoulmala Harris and Cory Bain Capital is Our Friend became for it.

Tulsi had cosponsored H.R. 676 way before that.

I trust her that she is fully a supporter of MfA and if she was President would fight for it with Bernie.

I agree with you that Niko can overboard. I usually watch him only at the beginning of these kind of videos. At the beginning he lays out how the attackers are distorting things and how Tulsi is in the right. Then he keeps going and goes overboard a lot. Often he isn’t explaining what Tulsi has said or thinks but what he thinks.

If I was young, beautiful like Kim Iverson, and had a great voice, I’d become a YouTuber and BLOW THEM ALL TO SMITHEREENS.

Speaking of the Smithereens:


Thanks for all the info. I do recall the issue with Maza and Crowder. Crowder is absolutely insufferable - I could hardly watch the clips. In general, I mostly align with David Doel on the free speech on private platform issues - there isn’t any. You either follow the rules with margin or you can be booted. Whether Crowder followed or broke the rules on his platform, I didn’t try to determine. I guess I don’t need to find out if Tracey is (as described on https://www.reddit.com/r/WayOfTheBern/comments/by0eb5/the_humanist_mike_figueredo_goes_after_michael/) an economic leftist or not - you can counter someones argument without calling them a right wing troll. In general, I think Doel is pretty good about this - he can disagree with people without that much character assassination (unless it is really deserved). I also can’t stand to watch Ana Kasparian - I didn’t like her style even before the Tulsi issue but that turned me off completely. I don’t agree with David Doel on everything, but I don’t think he is hostile to Tulsi (he isn’t enamored either) and I like his Canadian perspective as someone who has run for office with the Greens and I hear some more info on Canada and Britain than I would otherwise. He is one of the people I watch that I decided to support on Patreon and I’m still evaluating some of the others. I hope he is thinking for himself and not mirroring Ana as an attempt to get onto that network (which I don’t watch).

Kyle’s style is a bit crazy for me, but he can be entertaining at times.

If you ever check out Question Time, that is a style of YouTube presentation that I think is brilliant. You never see his face and you never need to. Every image is a graphic or a video or picture of the topic he is discussing. I like his style of speaking and I have a pretty wide range of voice I consider acceptable (I get a kick out of everyone fawning over Terri Gross on NPR and her voice is just fine, but it isn’t a reason to listen to the show - I listen to it when I’m interested in the guest which is maybe 1/4 of the times and she gives the guest plenty of time to speak). Again, I don’t agree with this guy on everything and in his story on who Bernie’s VP pick might be, he get’s it wrong that Omar can be even discussed as she is foreign born and he has a higher opinion of Harris than I do. But he supports most progressive platforms and kind of reminds me of talking to bright engineer types so I’m into it for now.

In any case, if you ever decide to do a YouTube show, please let us know here and don’t let your perception of your voice quality prevent you from doing it.

And yes, Iversen is very pretty - I started watching her show in an attempt to get some gender diversity in my YouTube watching as everybody else I watch is a guy (but I listen to women - besides Teri Gross, I haven’t given up on Democracy Now even though many here think they are talking bad stances on Syria or Venezuela). Since listening, she has surprised me - she has some different takes occasionally than the general progressive YouTube agreement, so she definitely seems to thinking for herself. So hopefully I’m not watching because of her looks - something I’ve commented on here that shouldn’t matter in politics when discussions of Tulsi’s or AOC’s looks comes up.

Nice song - haven’t heard that one in a while - is the album good? - worth getting?

1 Like

I don’t know. I really discovered them after I listened to music via streaming like YouTube or Spotify, so I haven’t listened to the album.

Thanks for your take on the YouTubers. Check out Hard Lens.

1 Like

The ASTOUNDING part is that THIS is supposed to be a presidential debate … not a kindergarten spat.
The nation must NOT accept this kind of behavior!
Where are the f—in’ networks?
NOT answering ANYTHING to such a challenge should be an immediate DISQUALIFIER from the Debates if not from the Race.

Hi CRLady2016:
Thank you for the Tulsi video. It would be nice and logical if America had days off for all people with all religious holidays. I read that during the Middle Ages, there were all kinds of religious celebration days, even days where the rulers and the "underlings " switched roles.
If America celebrated all religious days—I think that workers of the world would benefit and so would world religions. : )