The industries that donate is a data point, but it’s not like QED it’s bad. If workers on Wall Street donate a lot to someone, at least you know they expect that candidate’s policies to work ok for them. This case could have an innocent enough explanation though as there are a lot of lower paid people just working in health insurance.
But, generally, not supporting M4A is bad imo. Ever since Otto Von Bismark invented the modern practice of throwing people a bone (ie the modern social welfare state) in order to prevent more radical change and openly boasted about that, and then FDR privately talked about it, it has been pretty standard to protect the status quo with promises of incrementalism. And I don’t think the path from a public option to M4A is at all clear. A much more viable incrementalism, and one which I’m pretty sure is consistent with Bernie and Liz, is the gradual expansion of public health insurance and publicly provided health care.
At any rate, campaigning on what you want, even if it will take X years to get there is better than a campaign based on your immediate first year incremental change. Would you campaign on climate change and base it on your 2 year goal? Did John F. Kennedy campaign on beginning to start a program that could possibly lead to someone maybe getting to the moon in several years? Did MLK launch a campaign so that Black people could maybe sit towards the middle of the bus on weekends? I think it’s totally fair to be skeptical that medical care available to all Americans is even the direction that Mayor Pete is trying to go.
Either that or at least openly and honestly stake out the position that you think something other than guaranteed medical care for everyone is actually the best thing.
Well then you and Flynn are wrong. It takes literally zero effort to disavow a known and active enemy of the US and NATO and she’s been given umpteen opportunities to do so and refuses. Either they have something on her or she actively wants such support. It’s not even a little complicated.
But she has disavowed it. In the interview quoted, she disavowed it and immediately went into her stop the endless regime-change wars spiel. It’s what any politician would do.
My defense of Warren is that she’s denying the premise, and to be consistent, that’s all Tulsi is probably doing. Everyone knows the worst thing to do if you’re being attacked with lies (let’s assume for one second that she’s not actively a Russian asset) is to allow the narrative to stay on those lies. Deny it once, then move on and get out your talking points. The more you repeat a lie–even to deny it–the more you solidify it in the public’s mind. She would be foolish to give a hundred-word denial; give two words (not true) and then give 98 about how you’d make the bestest president because you want to stop the endless regime-change wars!!!
Is it hard for her to say, ‘I don’t want their support, it doesn’t make me look good’? Yes, yes it is, because she wants that kind of support. It’s the only way her name ends up in a headline unless she says some really stupid shit about someone like Hillary Clinton.
Leaving aside the slightly pedantic point that Gabbard saying she can’t control what RT says is actually a disavowal - what you mean is that she won’t condemn RT itself, or say that it’s Putin-oriented or whatever?
You’re a candidate for president and you’re going to say “… it doesn’t make me look good” about something that you don’t control?
Maybe a better response would be “I reject any support from them,” but maybe she has been advised that the best route is to not even say she’s getting support. In any interview like this her only move is to give the quickest denial–while not accepting the accusation–and move on to ‘we must stop these endless regime-change wars!’
Her political views seem pretty similar to Bernie if you ask me. And she quit the DNC to endorse Bernie last time! So that’s where the establishment rage and smears towards her is coming from, I’m honestly surprised so many around here are buying what Hilldawg and her DNC shills are selling.
The problem is that I would say, ‘I don’t want that support. They have my intent wrong. Read my lips, if this is why you’re voting for me, I don’t want your vote.’ I wouldn’t use garbage language like she is or use garbage language like what I suggested. Saying, ‘I can’t control them’ is tacit language saying you welcome it. She needs that support to have any relevance at all. If she says she rejects it, she slides into pure irrelevance with no support at all.
I don’t believe for a second she’s in favor on ending endless wars/regime change (I’m sure she’d love to regime change MBS if she had a chance). I believe she’s in favor of ending endless wars that don’t benefit Putin, and that she’d love to have endless wars on ‘terrorists’. I also think she’d draw live to leaving NATO or stopping payment for it if she really walked the talk. But she’s just fronting.
What I mean is that she’s been asked point blank to even hint that Assad and Putin might not have the West’s best interests at heart and she consistently acts like she has loans out with them that will be called the minute she says anything negative about them. This criticism has dogged her since well before she threw her hat into the US Prez ring, but nobody noticed until now because she never really mattered until now.
This is 100% of the reason she’s nationally known. And Russian bots and trolls probably campaigned for Bernie and they probably campaigned for Obama too.
She grew up with wacky conservative beliefs and probably retains some of them, and is susceptible to propaganda that reinforces what she heard growing up.
She’s an asset of Putin.
To me, the conspiracy theory is always going to fall on the wrong side of Ockham’s Razor.
This post is a good example of how to explain that she’s absolutely not presidential material, and absolutely not presidential material at 38.
To put a finer point on why she’s not presidential material, I believe SK would vote for her if he ever exercised his right to vote. She’s the candidate who most aligns with all of the contrarian trolling he does on here, and he’s for sure not a Democrat.
Social media influencing elections is a pretty new thing, so I don’t think Russian bots were propping Obama at any point. I don’t think those ops got up and running really until 2014.
People forget how much and how quickly we’ve moved into the social media arena. Just go back and look at what Black Mirror was doing in 2011 to understand that this is a very recent development.
