Tulsi Gabbard: Trump Stay Out of Venezuela

paulsurovell said:

terp said:
Tulsi Gabbard will get nothing but heartache from the main stream media.  It is precisely because she is truly anti-war.  NBC ran a hit piece saying the Russian propaganda machine was pushing her candidacy already.  They used this "New Knowledge" company as their main source. This same company had been exposed by the NY Times some 6 weeks ago as fabricating Russian Troll accounts to make it appear that Russian intelligence was trying to undermine the Alabama Senate election.  
Apologies if this already was covered.  And Paul, don't let them get you down.  You have a well informed and very important perspective that should be heard and respected. 

 Thanks Terp. I actually thrive on the attacks as well as the challenging questions.

It's to be expected that the mainstream media will try to delegitimize Tulsi. The MSM is the mouthpiece of the military-industrial complex and Tulsi is a threat to the military-industrial complex. It's not complicated.
Here's a graphic purporting to show the Presidential candidates that appeared yesterday on CNN two days after Tulsi declared her candidacy (some portrayed have not yet declared). Does anyone believe that Tulsi was "overlooked?"

 Where would you put Tulsi's face on that chart, and why?

Good NY Times article on the issue of legitimate government in Venezuela:

"Venezuela is a difficult case because Mr. Maduro’s legitimacy is contested within his country. If you see him as illegitimate, then the American policy seems to advance Venezuelans’ democratic rights to elect their own leader. If you see him as still legitimate, then the United States is arguably subverting Venezuelan democracy."

And another good article on the positions.

paulsurovell said:

Here's a graphic purporting to show the Presidential candidates that appeared yesterday on CNN two days after Tulsi declared her candidacy (some portrayed have not yet declared). Does anyone believe that Tulsi was "overlooked?"

The updated version you posted states at the bottom, “This piece does not analyze the platform of every declared or possible Democratic candidate.” So that’s what it purports, and so I’d be surprised if anyone believes that Gabbard was overlooked.

DaveSchmidt said:

LOST said:
This is the only mainstream politician I can recall who was actually considered a Pacifist.

 Norman Thomas. My paternal grandparents were fans.
Well, maybe not so mainstream.

 Not at all mainstream. He was never elected to any position to my knowledge. I was referencing actual members of Congress.

paulsurovell said:

It's to be expected that the mainstream media will try to delegitimize Tulsi. The MSM is the mouthpiece of the military-industrial complex and Tulsi is a threat to the military-industrial complex. 

If she were an actual threat she wouldn't still be with us.

Even Trump is not allowed to contradict the policies of the military-industrial complex. He was allowed to get away with everything he said and did up until he said we were pulling out of Syria. He could shoot someone in the middle of Fifth Avenue and get away with it, but opting for a little non-intervention was a no no.

LOST said:

 Not at all mainstream. He was never elected to any position to my knowledge. I was referencing actual members of Congress.

While rushing to share a memory of my beloved Grandma and Grandpa Schmidt, I read right past “mainstream.” Consider it completely walked back.

DaveSchmidt said:

paulsurovell said:

Here's a graphic purporting to show the Presidential candidates that appeared yesterday on CNN two days after Tulsi declared her candidacy (some portrayed have not yet declared). Does anyone believe that Tulsi was "overlooked?"

The updated version you posted states at the bottom, “This piece does not analyze the platform of every declared or possible Democratic candidate.” So that’s what it purports, and so I’d be surprised if anyone believes that Gabbard was overlooked.

The graphic before the update and after the update makes a statement -- Tulsi isn't a "serious" (legitimate) candidate, so no need to include her.

And here's another CNN graphic of January 27, 2019, updated on February 1st, which excludes Tulsi.  She announced her intention to run (on CNN) on January 10th.

I mean seriously, Dave, do you think Tulsi is going to get a fair shake from the mainstream media?

LOST said:

paulsurovell said:

It's to be expected that the mainstream media will try to delegitimize Tulsi. The MSM is the mouthpiece of the military-industrial complex and Tulsi is a threat to the military-industrial complex. 

If she were an actual threat she wouldn't still be with us.

Her candidacy is a threat, so the game plan now is to destroy her candidacy so that she doesn't get a chance to share her ideas with a national platform, at which point she would become a real threat, in which case Yes, she'd need more than the standard Secret Service detail for candidates.

LOST said:

Even Trump is not allowed to contradict the policies of the military-industrial complex. He was allowed to get away with everything he said and did up until he said we were pulling out of Syria. He could shoot someone in the middle of Fifth Avenue and get away with it, but opting for a little non-intervention was a no no.

 Agreed.

The picture of the candidates from CNN is dated Feb. 1, 2019.

CNN's timeline has her announcing on Feb 2, 2019

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/30/us/tulsi-gabbard-fast-facts/index.html

I will agree that that is not much of an excuse for their exclusion of her but I'll wait to see how coverage develops.

paulsurovell said:

I mean seriously, Dave, do you think Tulsi is going to get a fair shake from the mainstream media?

You asked if anyone believed that she was overlooked. I replied that it’d be difficult to believe she was overlooked, given CNN’s addendum. It was a conscious decision, and your criticism is fair.

I have some long-standing issues with media coverage of presidential campaigns, but I’ll make no predictions about how things will go.

LOST said:
The picture of the candidates from CNN is dated Feb. 1, 2019.
CNN's timeline has her announcing on Feb 2, 2019
https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/30/us/tulsi-gabbard-fast-facts/index.html
I will agree that that is not much of an excuse for their exclusion of her but I'll wait to see how coverage develops.

 She announced before February 2nd, but the official announcement (barely covered in the news) was on the 2nd.  

LOST said:
The picture of the candidates from CNN is dated Feb. 1, 2019.
CNN's timeline has her announcing on Feb 2, 2019
https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/30/us/tulsi-gabbard-fast-facts/index.html
I will agree that that is not much of an excuse for their exclusion of her but I'll wait to see how coverage develops.
 

 The headline is "Democrats who have said they're running for President." Tulsi said she was running on CNN's Van Jones show on January 10th. She formally declared (announced) her candidacy on February 2d.

Several of the others on the graphic, Beto, Klobuchar, Sanders and Brown haven't even said they're running as far as I know,

There is no question that the mainstream media is trying to destroy Tulsi's candidacy.

paulsurovell said:

LOST said:
The picture of the candidates from CNN is dated Feb. 1, 2019.
CNN's timeline has her announcing on Feb 2, 2019
https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/30/us/tulsi-gabbard-fast-facts/index.html
I will agree that that is not much of an excuse for their exclusion of her but I'll wait to see how coverage develops.
 

 The headline is "Democrats who have said they're running for President." Tulsi said she was running on CNN's Van Jones show on January 10th. She formally declared (announced) her candidacy on February 2d.

Several of the others on the graphic, Beto, Klobuchar, Sanders and Brown haven't even said they're running as far as I know,
There is no question that the mainstream media is trying to destroy Tulsi's candidacy.

 The article itself goes through the candidates, starting with declared (Tulsi is covered along with the others) then on to those with exploratories, then to other ones based on level of activity. 

But if you want to base your argument on the illustration, it's not that convincing. 

paulsurovell said:

LOST said:
The picture of the candidates from CNN is dated Feb. 1, 2019.
CNN's timeline has her announcing on Feb 2, 2019
https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/30/us/tulsi-gabbard-fast-facts/index.html
I will agree that that is not much of an excuse for their exclusion of her but I'll wait to see how coverage develops.
 

 The headline is "Democrats who have said they're running for President." Tulsi said she was running on CNN's Van Jones show on January 10th. She formally declared (announced) her candidacy on February 2d.

Several of the others on the graphic, Beto, Klobuchar, Sanders and Brown haven't even said they're running as far as I know,
There is no question that the mainstream media is trying to destroy Tulsi's candidacy.

 Maybe, rather than trying to destroy her candidacy, they are merely reflecting the likelihood of her success.

Dennis_Seelbach said:

 Maybe, rather than trying to destroy her candidacy, they are merely reflecting the likelihood of her success.

Maybe they shouldn’t be doing that.

One indicator of whether the MSM is trying to destroy Tulsi's campaign will be if and how they cover this trolling endorsement to sabotage Tulsi:

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/428533-david-duke-endorses-tulsi-gabbard-for-president

Tulsi is  waste of time.  Let's move on.  Thanks.

paulsurovell said:
One indicator of whether the MSM is trying to destroy Tulsi's campaign will be if and how they cover this trolling endorsement to sabotage Tulsi:

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/428533-david-duke-endorses-tulsi-gabbard-for-president

 Which should they do?  Report the endorsement and rejection, or not report the endorsement at all. 

DaveSchmidt said:

Dennis_Seelbach said:

 Maybe, rather than trying to destroy her candidacy, they are merely reflecting the likelihood of her success.

Maybe they shouldn’t be doing that.

 No maybe about it.

I think Gabbard's role is to keep the Bernie base active and vocal until Bernie steps up.  I don't think she'll be a contender - and of course the MSM will be the culprit to her demise.  (Everyone needs an enemy.)

jamie said:
I think Gabbard's role is to keep the Bernie base active and vocal until Bernie steps up.  I don't think she'll be a contender - and of course the MSM will be the culprit to her demise.  (Everyone needs an enemy.)

 Never thought of it that way, but now that you mention it, that makes perfect sense.  She draws early fire, creates resentment against the press and other Democrats (Bernie will make clucking sounds about how unfair everyone's been to her).  She's like the lead cyclist on the team, who bears the brunt of the headwinds until pulling aside to let "star" take the lead.

jamie said:
I think Gabbard's role is to keep the Bernie base active and vocal until Bernie steps up.  I don't think she'll be a contender - and of course the MSM will be the culprit to her demise.  (Everyone needs an enemy.)

 Actually, Bernie has plenty to complain about the MSM and is a good example of how some of their missteps towards candidates are not always so innocent. 

terp said:

jamie said:
I think Gabbard's role is to keep the Bernie base active and vocal until Bernie steps up.  I don't think she'll be a contender - and of course the MSM will be the culprit to her demise.  (Everyone needs an enemy.)

 Actually, Bernie has plenty to complain about the MSM and is a good example of how some of their missteps towards candidates are not always so innocent. 

 I can think of a better example than the treatment of Bernie

*cough* "her emails" *cough*