Jump to content
The Education Forum

I told you Tulsi's the one!


Recommended Posts

Paul:

Its people like Biden, Obama, and Clinton who caused Howard Dean to say, "I'm from the Democratic wing of the Democratic party."

And we know how they plotted against Howard.  Almost as bad as what they did to Bernie.

That Tulsi is reading the Douglass book shows that she understands what happened to the Democratic party.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 126
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Obama is the guy who got Ellison, Bernie's choice to head the DNC, out and put Perez in.

In other words, after all the crap the DNC pulled on Bernie to favor HRC, Bernie wanted it cleaned out.  Obama did not.

Further, it was Biden who was one of Obama's very early backers, and I mean early.  And he did this in opposition to another Jessie Jackson candidacy.

This is what I mean about Dean saying what he did.  Both Clintons were pals with Al From, the founder of the DLC and a vociferous critic of Dean who did not support the Iraq War.  Biden was a founding member of the DLC. Obama once called Bill Clinton a "great president".  😢

That DLC group got its roots from the Henry Jackson wing of the Democratic party, which actually began the Neocon movement--Richard Perle etc-- which was in opposition to JFK's Third World and detente policies.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder what Tulsi Gabbard will have to say about Trump announcing the second (or is it the third?) death of the mysterious Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi in the Turkish-controlled Idlib region of northeastern Syria yesterday.

We all know by now that the CIA/NATO/Saudi/Israeli coalition has trained, armed, and funded the Sunni proxy militias -- Al Qaeda, Al Nusra, Daesh, ISIS, et.al.-- who have been trying to overthrow the Syrian (Assad) government in recent years.

Who was al-Baghdadi fighting for and against?

Gabbard has been one of the few politicians to challenge that false Deep State narrative about our Syrian proxy war.

This apparent Trump PR stunt-- announcing the death of al-Baghdadi-- is an opportunity for Gabbard to question the false Deep State narrative about Operation Timber Sycamore and "ISIS."

Will Gabbard question the Trump/al-Baghdadi farce, and prove that she is not just angling for a job at Fox News, or planning to undermine the Democratic nominee as a third party  candidate in 2020?

Or will she say nothing, and remove all doubts about Clinton's recent allegations about her 2020 third party candidacy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Ray Mitcham said:

How can the inquiry be "going on behind closed doors" when there are a great number of republican Congress members attending the sessions. Sounds like a huge straw man argument.

Yes it certainly is, and Tulsi Gabbard is showing poor judgement at best. 

On domestic policy Republicans and Democrats are polar opposites. On foreign policy they have been very similar - large defense budgets and wars, primarily around resources and corporate rights. So what is the real purpose of the extreme criticism of the Democratic Establishment? Is their foreign policy history worse than Republicans? No, certainly not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's what happened to Howard Dean: the Washington Post was

against his candidacy early on, when they ran a feature in the dog days of summer testing out

all the "crazy man" tropes that would become familiar, about his

red-faced shouting and so forth. Then we dissolve forward several

months, and Dean comes out publicly in favor of breaking up the big media

monopolies. It is no coincidence that within a week he was gone. The TV networks

contrived to tamper with the audio of his excited campaign speech, and the

Post led the charge in the print media as the MSM called it a "Dean scream" and making it seem like evidence of insanity. It was

a feeble excuse to end a candidacy, but it did the job. (I also tried to figure

out specifically why the Post was supporting the Iraq War -- aside from their

longtime Bush/CIA connections, although some elements of the CIA did oppose that

truly insane enterprise. What I found in my research was that the Post corporation made its profit

from its printing business. The newspaper was a loss leader. They

were trying to get W to push through a bill in Congress to give their

printing business a tax break to keep it profitable. Therefore they

supported the war. And in return they got their tax break. So much

for the Post's phony image of being a "liberal" newspaper, which

few on this site would fall for in any case.)

Edited by Joseph McBride
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Joseph McBride said:

Here's what happened to Howard Dean: the Washington Post was

against his candidacy early on, when they ran a feature in the dog days of summer testing out

all the "crazy man" tropes that would become familiar, about his

red-faced shouting and so forth. Then we dissolve forward several

months, and Dean comes out publicly in favor of breaking up the big media

monopolies. It is no coincidence that within a week he was gone. The TV networks

contrived to tamper with the audio of his excited campaign speech, and the

Post led the charge in the print media as the MSM called it a "Dean scream" and making it seem like evidence of insanity. It was

a feeble excuse to end a candidacy, but it did the job. (I also tried to figure

out specifically why the Post was supporting the Iraq War -- aside from their

longtime Bush/CIA connections, although some elements of the CIA did oppose that

truly insane enterprise. What I found in my research was that the Post corporation made its profit

from its printing business. The newspaper was a loss leader. They

were trying to get W to push through a bill in Congress to give their

printing business a tax break to keep it profitable. Therefore they

supported the war. And in return they got their tax break. So much

for the Post's phony image of being a "liberal" newspaper, which

few on this site would fall for in any case.)

Yes.

It was disturbingly amazing to see how major elements of our main stream media could turn a simple late night tired campaign victory yell by Dean into the rantings of a crazy man and have it so instantly and widely reported.

I remember seeing the front page cover of one of our weekly national magazines ( Newsweek-Time? ) displayed prominently right in front of our supermarket checkout lines with a picture of a fractured face portrait of Howard Dean, accompanied by the ominous title "Doubts About Dean" just after Dean's Iowa victory. He was clearly and instantly being framed as a whacky, screaming nutcase.

I see a similar scary "Boogie Man/Woman" demonizing campaign already developing towards Elizabeth Warren. She's being portrayed as a dangerous socialist extremist who wants to lead a charge ( with planted code word hints of violence ) against our upper class and corporate/banking structure. And an enemy of our military and police forces to boot.

With unlimited funds, exaggerated wag-the-dog false boogie man realities like this can take hold. Willie Horton, commie/hippie loving George McGovern, screaming loon Dean etc.

Edited by Joe Bauer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, David Andrews said:

Obama screwed us royally on the AHCA.

 

(You mean the ACA, right?)

Why do you say that, David? Before Obamacare, I couldn't afford to buy medical insurance. Now I can. I was hospitalized last year and Obamacare foot the bill. Without Obamacare, I would have had to sell the house to pay the bill.

 

Edited by Sandy Larsen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

(You mean the ACA, right?)

Why do you say that, David? Before Obamacare, I couldn't afford to buy medical insurance. Now I can. I was hospitalized last year and Obamacare foot the bill. Without Obamacare, I would have had to sell the house to pay the bill.

 

Sandy - I take it you can afford better than the Bronze Plan level?

Even Michael Moore mentions it as a sore point of the Democratic Party in his presentation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

(You mean the ACA.)

Why do you say that, David? Before Obamacare, I couldn't afford to buy medical insurance. Now I can. I was hospitalized last year and Obamacare foot the bill. Without Obamacare, I would have had to sell the house to pay the bill.

 

 

When my wife lost her job after 25 years a few years back, she and I both lost health care coverage under her job benefits. We went on Obama Care until she finally found health care providing work again. The ACA was a bridge that kept us from being totally uninsured.

I remember watching one of the early televised Republican primary debates in 2012 when all the candidates participated. Romney, Gingrich, Santorum, Perry, Paul, Et al.

During this debate (in South Carolina I believe ) and in a pause in the speaking regarding health care policies and the uninsured in this country an audience member shouted out loud enough for all the candidates and us television viewers to hear ... "LET EM DIE!"

That extremely cruel and callous shout out stopped the candidates and even the moderators for several seconds.

What struck me to the core and something I still remember about that moment was how NOT ONE of the Republican presidential candidates felt the need to instantly condemn such a cold blooded sentiment statement like that about one's fellow Americans who were without health insurance.

"LET EM DIE!"

They never did. A new unrelated question restarted the debate.

The Republican candidates lack of courage to respond to that heartless shout out with a defense of all Americans deserving something more than nothing regards health care and a "let em die" sentiment left me feeling that the Republican party and voter mentality regards the uninsured was closer to that sentiment than the average citizen would think.

I still feel this.

 

 

 

Edited by Joe Bauer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really Jim, Tulsi's the one now? You should have started your campaigning for her 6 months ago.
 
Jim- Champion of conspiracy victim lost causes.
 
With Gabbard's  candidacy you can see how the one- issue- MIC conspiracy crowd rates in the greater scheme, about 1%. Hey I didn't make the rules. But I have some curiosity about the larger world around me, and I don't live in a bubble.
 
The Dem 3 front runners  and the outside Butigieg are pretty much set. The only change would be the result of a  someone coming from completely without, or a brokered convention.
 
And I'm hardly talking about Hilary. She should never have said that. The Clinton's should get lost for a long awhile.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What took you so long Kirk?  Been on vacation?

BTW, I did talk about Tulsi a long time ago.  I liked what she said about Syria.  Because I kind of figured out that the CIA was behind Al Nusra.

I did an article for garrison, the Zine, about this subject.  That is, how horrendous American intervention in the Middle East has become. In that article, I said its almost as if the USA is tilting the playing field in favor of the extremes.  That is, both in Israel and with the fundamentalists.  Syria is not a fundamentalist state, its a secular state.  Why would we want to see it turn into a fundamentalist state?  DId we not learn from what HRC did with Libya?

But this is what the neocons, like HRC, seemed to favor. To the point of falsifying evidence to blame Assad for a gas attack. (https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/douma-syria-opcw-chemical-weapons-chlorine-gas-video-conspiracy-theory-russia-a8927116.html)

See, the more you play to the extremes, the less possibility you have for a gestalt settlement.  One that would include a separate state for Palestine.  By radicalizing the rest of the Middle East, it helps keep Likud in power.

And she is not a one issue candidate.  That is what the MSM wants you to think: https://www.tulsi2020.com/record

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

By now, certainly not likely. Jim.

She's not the only cut defense candidate, there's Bernie, Warren, Yang and Harris. So she has to get another message out.  She's very pro Kurd, down on the Trump removal. That doesn't set her apart from anybody.  She  seems to attract ideologues, so she can suffer from association. It's tough because she's somewhat inward and private for a politician.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

What took you so long Kirk?  Been on vacation?

BTW, I did talk about Tulsi a long time ago.  I liked what she said about Syria.  Because I kind of figured out that the CIA was behind Al Nusra.

I did an article for garrison, the Zine, about this subject.  That is, how horrendous American intervention in the Middle East has become. In that article, I said its almost as if the USA is tilting the playing field in favor of the extremes.  That is, both in Israel and with the fundamentalists.  Syria is not a fundamentalist state, its a secular state.  Why would we want to see it turn into a fundamentalist state?  DId we not learn from what HRC did with Libya?

But this is what the neocons, like HRC, seemed to favor. To the point of falsifying evidence to blame Assad for a gas attack. (https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/douma-syria-opcw-chemical-weapons-chlorine-gas-video-conspiracy-theory-russia-a8927116.html)

See, the more you play to the extremes, the less possibility you have for a gestalt settlement.  One that would include a separate state for Palestine.  By radicalizing the rest of the Middle East, it helps keep Likud in power.

And she is not a one issue candidate.  That is what the MSM wants you to think: https://www.tulsi2020.com/record

Jim,

      I agree with your take on the two apparent false flag chemical attacks in Syria that were blamed on the Syrian Army, and used by Trump (and NATO) as a pretext to bomb Syrian government positions.  The detailed analyses of these two false flag attacks by MIT Emeritus Professor Theodore Postol were, unfortunately, blacklisted by the U.S. mainstream media.

      Two related questions for you and the forum.

1)   Do you believe that ISIS, itself, is a Sunni proxy militia funded and supported by the CIA/NATO/Saudi/Mossad coalition in Anbar Province and Syria?

2)   What accurate, reliable sources of information do we have about CIA ops in Syria during the past decade?   There is so much disinformazia out there that it's difficult to parse reality from the ubiquitous propaganda.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1.  I don't know about that.

2. Kinzer wrote an article about the Al Nusra awhile ago.  It was very suggestive that it was being funded and trained by the CIA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...