Bernie vs Tulsi: How to Identify Controlled Opposition Part 4

37
4 years ago
in
#bernie

Bernie vs Tulsi: How to Identify Controlled Opposition Part 4

On the Issues cont.

Federal Reserve

Tulsi: Tulsi Gabbard is a cosponsor of the Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2019 - which seeks to audit the Federal Reserve.

Ron Paul expressed support for Tulsi Gabbard, saying that she was the "very best" democrat running

"Tulsi Gabbard by far is the very, very best"
"She is very liberal when it comes to economics. We probably wouldn't agree with too much on economics."
“She is good on foreign policy. She does not want these engagements, which is an economic issue. We'd save a lot of money by not being engaged like this."

"She's the most intelligent and would be the best, If we had to pick one of them to be our president, I think she would be giving us the best chance as for bringing about peace."

This is certainly one of the policies that inspired Ron Paul’s endorsement, aside from her foreign policy. Now lets take a look at where Ron Paul puts Bernie on this issue, largely for the sake of recognizing the boundaries of Bernie's appealability.

Bernie: The Hill published a piece titled, "Ron Paul says Bernie Sanders 'sold out' on Fed amendment""

I am just going to leave it at that.

If Bernie could not assimilate Tulsi’s progressive stances into his own platform, why should Tulsi supporters have assimilated into Bernie’s camp when Bernie refused to fight for us and the issues we care about? While Tulsi was on par with Bernie’s domestic issues regarding healthcare and education, Bernie failed to meet her on advocating for freedom of speech on social media by challenging big tech censorship, or for freedom of press by supporting Assange, nor does he challenging intervention and sanctions in Syria, Venezuela, and Iran...just to name a few key issues.

image.png

The most power the President has is bestowed through their role of being the Commander in Chief, this is arguably the most important role of the president, as Congress has little say in the area ever since the war on terror began, whereas Bernie’s most popular platforms rely on Congress getting legislation passed congress and brought to his desk. Tulsi supporters are not confident in Bernie standing up to the military industrial complex, based on his history mostly. Even if his rhetoric was more appealing on issue such as Venezuela, his history would cast doubt.

Tulsi supporters were not confident in Bernie standing up to the military industrial complex. He has complied with the war machine's agenda many times since 2016, and for decades prior. Unless he changed his tune drastically, telling Tulsi supporters or Tulsi herself that they are obliged to throw their support behind Bernie was a gigantic insult, not just to Tulsi and her supporters, but to everyone affected by issues she speaks up for that Bernie refused to give a voice to, whether it be Assange rotting in prison or the children of Venezuela, Iran, and Syria starving as a result of the sanctions and propaganda that Bernie is complicit in supporting and propagating.

On top of all the policy differences, and after Bernie's surrogates have relentlessly smeared Tulsi, it is extremely entitled to have tried to shame Tulsi voters into voting for Bernie in the primaries. Many have countered by shaming Bernie himself, along with his surrogates - not just for vote shaming but for anything which was worthy of shame.

When a Bernie surrogate smeared Tulsi, Niko, a Tulsi surrogate, would respond
image.png
A Tulsi supporter would add to the discussion:
image.png

Some would take the "Gabbard should drop out and stop hurting Bernie's chances" argument and flipped it around.

image.png
image.png
image.png
image.png
image.png

She isn't wrong, Sanders has alienated many from his movement, where as Tulsi has successfully reached out across the spectrum.
Despite running on a progressive platform, she earned an endorsement from Gary Johnson, the libertarian candidate in 2016, going into the New Hampshire Primary.
Gabbard builds bridges outside of the progressive movement better than Bernie, but she also burns bridges better than Bernie - bridges that need to be burnt. ie: DNC establishment, intelligence community, military-industrial complex, etc
image.png

Bernie supporters were vote shaming Tulsi supporters and telling Tulsi to drop out as Bernie's campaign was complicit in her erasure and said nothing when CNN excluded her from the debates she was more qualified for than half the other candidates invited according to the polls. Nor did Bernie and Co say anything when she was excluded from the other debates, even when the DNC changed their rules of a debate last minute when Gabbard indisputably hit their previous long-standing criteria

image.png

image.png

Not only was Gabbard’s calling out of the nomination process and the overseers of it as corrupt and pointing out the “rigging” of the process a display of strength and authenticity, but it drew attention from independents and those fed up with the political establishment on both sides of the aisle. Not only was Tulsi focused more on differentiating herself from the other candidates on the issues during the primary rather than only focusing on beating Donald Trump, but she was better poised to just that, to actually beat him in a general, more so than any other candidate, with huge crossover appeal from independents.

Gary Johnson, the previous libertarian nominee, endorsed her before the NH primary. Shortly after Tulsi’s presidential bid, Libertarian Investments published a piece titled, “Would Tulsi Gabbard Make a Good President?”

"The main reason she stands out is because she is anti-establishment, particularly when it comes to the issue of war and foreign intervention.

Some would say that Gabbard is the left-wing version of Ron Paul. But we have to get a bit more specific. On cultural and economic issues, Gabbard is certainly mostly on the political left. On the issue of foreign policy, Tulsi Gabbard and Ron Paul are basically in the same camp.

Gabbard will be 39 years old when the 2020 election is held. She would be the youngest president in the history of the United States. She would obviously also become the first female president.

The establishment has already taken their digs at Gabbard. I suspect that the establishment media will try to ignore her as much as possible. They will give her the Ron Paul treatment to a certain extent. If she starts to gain significant support, then she is going to start to experience the Donald Trump treatment by the media. ”

Libertarians and independents would be willing to set aside differences on economics and accept her progressive platform that includes free healthcare, UBI, and other progressive initiatives, because she represents them in other areas that they feel are important - and doesn't alienate and disrespect them.

image.png

Presidential powers are limited in most areas, but since the war on terrorism, the president can initiate acts of war without congressional approval, and this has happened before. Even before this precedent was set post 9/11, the president has always faced the the least restraint, and most power in the area of foreign policy. This is why many claim the most important role of the president is the commander-in-chief, and it is why the foreign policy differences between Bernie and Tulsi are so crucial.

image.png

Another smear on Gabbard Bernie supporters were found the frequently echo was that she was a GOP Trojan horse. I want to address this to highlight that she was tough on Trump where everyone else was easy* on him.

Smear: Tulsi is a GOP Trojan horse and is easy on Trump

Reality: Tulsi opposed Trump's foreign policy while democrats thought he wasn't doing enough and wAs wOrKiNg fOr pUtIn

Tulsi said in May of 2019 that Trump and Bolton were pushing us to the brink of war with Iran.

11 months later and here we are, in a near state of war after [Trump assassinated Iran’s second-in-command, Soleimani, outside an Iraqi international airport](https://theantimedia.com/trump-war-with-iran-closer-than-you-thought/).

image.png

Iran’s second-in-command was extrajudicially assassinated by President Trump, a clear pretext for war. The reasons given by the White House amounted to Soleimani being a “terrorist” being responsible for the deaths of “hundreds of American soldiers”, and that taking him out was preventing an “imminent attack”.

Mike pence, the second-in-command of our country as Soleimani was to his, stated on Friday that Soleimani “was actively plotting in the region to take actions, the big action as he described it, that would have put dozens if not hundreds of American lives at risk, We know it was imminent.”

Of course, the evidence used to support the White House’s claims is highly suspect, brought to you by the same intelligence community that lied its way into the Iraq War (among many other post-2000 lies such as the Dhouma attacks, not to mention the Afghanistan papers). Eric Boehm noted in his article, "Without Evidence of 'Imminent' Attack on Americans, the White House's Justification for Killing Iranian General Seems Hollow” that, “Citing two unnamed U.S. intelligence officials who have been briefed on the Soleimani assassination, Rukmini Callimachi,the New York Times' top correspondent covering ISIS and the War on Terror, reports that ‘evidence suggesting there was to be an imminent attack on American targets is 'razor thin'’ and that the Trump administration made an ‘illogical leap’ in deciding to kill Soleimani.’”

The Business Insider would report that Trump told associates that “he assassinated Iran's top military leader last week in part to appease Republican senators who will play a crucial role in his Senate impeachment trial”

Marc Rubio responded to the media’s demands for evidence with a statement that comes straight from the empire’s manufacturing consent/propaganda manual, ending his statement with, “And easy for media to say no proof that these threats were different, because its highly classified intelligence that can’t be disclosed without putting sources & methods used at risk”...Well, now isn’t that convenient?

The reasons given by the white house shifted as their narrative collapsed was concisely portrayed by Ditz in an article titled “As ‘Four Embassy’ Allegation Falls Apart, Trump Says It Doesn’t Matter”:

“So with all those lies behind us, President Trump now is taking the position that “it doesn’t really matter” if the four embassy thing was made up, or that the “imminent threat” claim was untrue.

Trump now says that Soleimani deserved to die whether or not anything he said about him was true, because of his “horrible past.” Soleimani’s history as a top military leader for a country the US doesn’t get along with would in essence cover this.

And yet despite Trump’s claims, US law has made clear that political assassinations are illegal. Claims of “imminent threats” are so common by the military specifically because it offers them some vague legal pretext to circumvent the law against assassination for policy’s sake. Having lost that, Trump’s claim that it “doesn’t matter” seems to fly in the face of American legal standards.”

While many would defend Trump’s action by accusing Iran of supporting terrorism, they would neglect to acknowledge that Soleimani was widely recognized as being crucial in the war on ISIS, even by western media and military-as US forces have worked with Soleimani in anti-terrorism operations as he was a major participant in the war on ISIS.

image.png

They also fail to acknowledge the fact that this brings us closer to war. We turned Soleimani into a martyr. Ben Norton would comment on Soleimani's funeral alongside a videoclip of the crowds from a moving helicopter.
image.png

As Caitlin Johnstone wrote in “ The US Government Lies Constantly and the Burden of Proof is on the Accuser”,

“The US government has a very extensively documented history of lying to advance pre-existing military agendas. This is an entirely indisputable fact. It’s been universally true from generation to generation, from administration to administration, and from political party to political party. The Afghanistan Papers came out just a few weeks ago further documenting this already conclusively established fact. Anyone who just accepts US government assertions about the need for military force without a mountain of independently verifiable proof is, to put it nicely, a complete fucking idiot.

The demand for proof would be normal even if the entity in question didn’t have an extensive history of lying about these things, because, as anyone with even a cursory understanding of logic already knows, the burden of proof is always on the party making the claim. When it comes to incalculably important matters like life and death, demanding that the burden of proof be met is just being a sensible human being.

Add in the fact that the US government is known to lie constantly about these matters, and believing its current claims about Soleimani makes as much sense as believing a known compulsive liar who has deceived you many times when he tells you it’s urgent that you go murder your neighbor right this instant.”

Now how does this relate to democrats and Bernie? It'll make sense soon.

Here is what John Bolton, key architect of the Iraq war had to say following the assassination.

And to demonstrate the hivemind of left, even after all his war-mongering, weeks after after he made the tweet above cheering outright regime change, John Bolton would go on to be a hero of the left for testifying against Trump, as if all of his previous war crimes had been forgiven and even forgotten.
image.png

Another Iraq war architect, David Wurmser, was made one of Trump's chief advisors on Iran. While democrats were unusually silent on condemning trump for surrounding himself with Neocons like Bolton and Wurmser, Tulsi pointed out Trump's hypocrisy in his declaration claiming intent to prevent a war rather than start one.

Trump would then go on to announce a fresh round of sanctions, which Ilhan Omar would do a good job of condemning.

image.png

Soleimani was on a diplomatic mission to reply to Saudi Arabia using Iraq as an intermediary. Iraq’s parliament would vote to expel US troops from the country.](https://news.antiwar.com/2020/01/05/soleimani-was-in-baghdad-on-mission-for-saudi-peace/) Trump responded by asking them to pay billions of dollars for the American airbase, and as Zerohedge reported,

“That, however, wasn't enough, and Trump also made it clear that in addition to billions in reimbursements, unless the US left on a ‘very friendly basis’, the US would hit Iraq with ‘very big’ sanctions like ‘they’ve never seen before ever.’

‘If they do ask us to leave, if we don’t do it in a very friendly basis. We will charge them sanctions like they’ve never seen before ever. It’ll make Iranian sanctions look somewhat tame.’ ”

"The Squad" - often idolized as the driving progressive influence in Washington -  not only repeatedly fails to defend Gabbard through smears, even some partaking in them some, they treat her like a disease. Gabbard will propose positive legislation and she finds no support from progressives whom she should be able to gather some from. To Representative Omar's credit, she was the only cosponsor of H.R 897 by Gabbard - a resolution calling for 1000 dollars a month for every adult American.

And while the democrats allowed Gabbard to be further shamed for her present vote on impeachment, many see the overall efforts by democrats as "political theatre" to simply score political brownie-points from Trump-hating voters. The democrats, "progressive" or not, refused to acknowledge the corruption of their own party while they prosecuted Trump for corruption, and it did not go unnoticed.

image.png

This was immediately after the Iowa Caucus behavior. She didn't have much to say on that. Nothing at all on twitter. She called it a "hot mess" and that quote ran the MSM news cycle, so that's nice.

Trump’s 2016 campaign had anti-imperialism undertonesin his foreign policy rhetoric, including condemnations of Saudi Arabia, but he would go on to flip-flop on many of his talking points, many of these regarding foreign policy.

Its funny, most of the democrats who attack him and are so fixated on him cheer his draconian sanctions, or do little to oppose them and turn a blind eye. Many democrats even condemned him for not doing enough when he started to withdraw troops from Syria, including Sanders. And indeed there is some merit there, but…here is a how you should approach it.

image.png

Again, Tulsi Gabbard’s “No More Presidential Wars” resolution does not have one single cosponsor. If others were serious about preventing war and impeaching Trump, they would have supported Tulsi’s legislation, and if passed, Trump would have been removed from office if he were to have assassinated Soleimani without congressional approval — which he did. The legislation, if enacted, would have restored constitutional balance and discouraged and prevented the extrajudicial-assassination, as the law is meant to do, or Trump would already be gone.

If the democrats really wanted Trump gone, they would have passed Gabbard’s resolution restoring the constitutional check on Presidential war powers. It’s as if democrats were more focused on looking like they are impeaching Trump than actually impeaching him.

Gabbard has been harder on Trump than every democrat concerning his foreign policy. The notion that she is “easy on trump” for her very sensible and justified present vote is just a product of the collective delusion brought on by the Russiagate narrative.

Many democrats did attack Trump for the assassination, after all, it is election season. But most of those same democrats attacking passed the military budget raise for him, and propagated much of the propaganda leading up to it - While Tulsi could not pass the annual defense spending bill in "good conscience" and was frequently putting pressure on Trump to refrain from both militaristic and economic imperialism. Imperialism that both endangers our national security as well as harming civilians in the countries we have tensions with.

“As a senior member of the House Armed Services Committee, I fought hard to get many provisions in this year's defense bill to protect Hawai‘i and our country, improve the lives of servicemembers and military families, provide transparency of the devastating humanitarian impact of U.S. sanctions, and address environmental threats. But at a time when many Americans are struggling and suffering, the massive cost of this defense bill at $740.1 billion disproportionately benefits the military industrial complex, continues to escalate the new Cold War and nuclear arms race, and needlessly puts more of our troops’ lives at risk by continuing our decades-long war in Afghanistan. I could not in good conscience vote to pass it,” said Rep. Tulsi Gabbard.

Meanwhile this is how Trump was reacting,

Dore said it well when he said,

image.png

Gotta love Dore, hit the nail on the head.
If Trump is a fascist nazi dictator you want to impeach, why would you give him a $750,000,000,000 military budget and ignore legislation to restore the pre 9/11 constitutional norm of needing congressional approval for acts of war?

Jimmy Dore uploaded a great video yesterday titled "AOC Gaslights For Democrats Over COVID Bail-Out." where he does a good job of putting the squad, particularly AOC, in a critical light. He even calls Tulsi Gabbard out for having supported it and that is awesome because the whole point to takeaway from this article is that we need to hold our elected officials under scrutiny and ensure accountability. Not even mattering whether Tulsi was wrong or right for supporting what Dore called the largest upwards transfer of wealth in history, she very well could have been wrong, the point is that we need to hold out politicians accountable and vote for who we like the best, based not just on their current rhetoric, but history of action and voting record.

If I want to vote for Jessie Ventura, or even Gabbard, as a 2024 people's party candidate in a hypothetical future where the Biden2024 crew id shaming everyone to rally behind them to defeat a Trump 2024 campaign, I wouldn't and shouldn't feel any shame for voting with the candidate that best represents me.

The lesser of two evils dynamic has ironically fostered the continuation of evil. It functions because of the argument "Well this person has a better shot, we need to defeat this other evil" and so the masses are always choosing from people with high amounts of power...in a corrupted system...Remember, voting evil, lesser or not, is still voting evil. Likewise, shaming people who are voting for the person who best reflects how they would ideally be represented is wrong, and its replicating the same dynamic that brought us the current corrupt duopoly where important issues demanding urgent reform don't see any as the years drag by.

sanders
tulsi
gabbard
tulsigabbard
politics
election
fed
4 years ago
mitchellmcguire37
via hiveblog
$ 0.000
1
1
H2
H3
H4
3 columns
2 columns
1 column
Join the conversation now