Slog PM: McConnell Writes for the Washington Post, How to Flee the Big One, Goodbye Cancer House



You know how if you are a hammer everything looks like a nail?

I'm so goddamn sick of liberals attributing EVERY FUCKING THING to Russians. The world is more complicated than that. If it had been the Saudi family or the Israeli state rather than Putin, you would find similar levels of corruption and collusion etc between their rich folks and politicians and our own. You are looking at capitalism assholes, this is how global capitalism works- you just keep hyperfocusing on little details and assuming everything must fit into some grand scheme based on the few things you have noticed.

There are millions of motivations around the world. Tulsi is not a goddamn Russian agent. There are more than two sides to everything you experience. If anything, she's ideologically Hindutva- either just as a result of her formative years or still today. As such, she sometimes has stances that are not aligned with the American imperial project, neither in its Democratic nor Republican form, and so she does not fit neatly in either party. That does not mean they are aligned with the Russians. The world has more than two sides. Why does any hint at complexity make people's heads explode into conspiracy theory?

Far more likely, she's just a politician like any other who happens to lean towards Hinduvta biases when she's evaluating a situation. She grew up in a goddamn bigoted religious cult with strong homophobic and nationalistic views. To her credit, as she grew up and traveled the world (as a part of the US war machine) she expanded past the trappings of her religious fundamentalist childhood. But her worldview is not going to be in step with those of mainstream Dems because she has a totally different ideology and framework to understand the world.

Now if you aren't ideologically in line with US hegemony, you will from time to time side with other major powers' perspectives. This doesn't mean you are an agent or a puppet serving those people- the world is not that simple. India is full of hindutva-aligned politicians and voters that support Assad b/c he managed to maintain borders and keep Salafists out. The fact is that the US interference which prolonged that war did allow for the rise of salafism there as it did in Iraq - often even with US guns (and sometimes, as in the case of al Nusra even with US cooperation). I'm not saying this was intentional and I'm not being a conspiracy theorist- Clinton herself talks about US enabling of salafism during the Benghazi hearings. It's a byproduct of US imperialism if you destroy all the enemies of salafists while supporting their allies. It just so happens that Russia has repeatedly been on the side of the salafist's enemies. And therefore, it's ideologically consistent that someone coming out of hindutva perspective would prefer Assad or Putin's foreign policy in the Middle East and oppose the US's. The US left wing likewise opposes it but tends to go for direct resistance instead (Rojava) or antiimperialism in general (opposing both US and Russian intervention).

Now why liberals cannot move beyond "russia bad, us good" when talking about these things is beyond me. But Tulsi can take a problematic stance that sometimes aligns herself with Putin without being an agent of him. Grow up already.


Hey yaar,

Gabbard is just a prop to mobilize the angry desi incel dolladolla bill yall techbro gamer bloc's thirst and coveting of their mom complex, because to do otherwise would be a race traitor and go against Hindustaaaaani nationalist right wing rhetoric. Make no mistake that the global press is on pants on fiya hotter than a Monsoon Wedding chariot. Be a man and do the needful.


@1 If all of that is true, then the nicest thing one can say about Tulsi Gabbard is that she has had a very successful career for someone who doesn't understand how politics work.


@1 Da comrade!...


I don’t understand why anybody is talking about tulsi at all. Her <1% support is all from too online gamergate types who think she’s hot. I also don’t understand why anybody cares what hillary clinton thinks. It’s like a bottomless void of a non-story but for some reason everyone can’t shut up about it.


@1 Clinton promotes conspiracy theories about 3rd party candidates because she won't acknowledge that she handed the victory to Trump by refusing to run a progressive campaign.


@3 Who said she doesn't understand how politics work? Of course she does. She's just coming from a different ideological background than most Democrats and so people get confused and interpret her by whatever narrow framework they have in their minds.

Tulsi's main schtick is to oppose salafism. It's been her main thing since her military service. Sometimes this means she's going to oppose American imperialism (which is aligned with the Saudis and which is responsible for creating the voids in whcih salafism has spread and often for arming them and sometimes for training them). It also means she's sometimes going to appear to support Assad, Putin, Iran, Modi etc because they have been most successful in fighting salafists and keeping them out of their borders.

To what extent she's influenced by the Hindutva right is up for interpretation- she's funded by them but I can't tell how much she actually is aligned with them directly.

My point is that not everything canbe interpreted through this Russiagate lens.

Also I'm pointing out that Hilary knows better. She sat on the floor of Congress and discussed the US role in spreading salafism, she knows about the Hindu right, she understands the situation in Syria. So her statements about Tulsi are dishonest- she does not believe them herself, she knows better. This should make liberals ask why she's saying them.

None of this is to support Tulsi btw. I think she's a thug.


Mooch McDumbbell can actually write? His comprehension can't be any further than the fifth grade reading level.


Whether Gabbard herself has any ideological or even pragmatic alignment with Russia seems irrelevant though. The contention would be that Russia supports her in the primary and/or as third party, or influences her through funders or other channels (that she'd presumably be unaware of as Russian-backed).


Now, if I were Putin I'd be funneling dirty money to every single Democratic candidate just for lulz, so finding it on any one doesn't have to be special.


@9 of course it matters. In the first place, there is absolutely no evidence that she has any support from Putin. The accusation rests upon the observation that she opposes US military actions in MENA and supports regimes that successfully thwart salafists. This position - by circumstance- means she will sometimes agree with Putin. There is nothing else, no other evidence at the base of Hillary's accusation. It's not like she's been caught receiving funds from or meeting with Russian agents, etc. It's simply an accusation based on her political position.

That alone should frighten all of us- that a political position against US imperialism is enough to make an accusation that you are an agent of a foreign government. But when it comes from Clinton, who damn well knows better and surely does not believe it, it's even worse- since it's participation in this sort of McCarthyism climate. Likewise with third parties. Their existence now means you are a Russian agent? I guess Peltier as well?

If there's a contention that she has Russian backers or funders through other channels, then make that case. If it's simply that Russian bots and propaganda sites support her, so the fuck what? What world do you people live in which doesn't include foreign governments having preferences in their adversaries' politics? Of course the foreign governments have precedents. Of course they have propaganda. That has nothing whatsoever to do with Tulsi. To jump from there to them "grooming her" to run as a spoiler is fucking crazy- it's simply a way to attack anyone who strays from the status quo defense of US military hegemony, and the liberals aligning themselves with CIA agents and the FBI to get on board new school McCarthyism should fucking matter very much.

As for Putin's lulz, sure whatever, as I said of course he'll have preferences, but I guarantee you that most of the bots and misinformation farms are more for ad revenue than propaganda actually from the Kremlin, as was the case in 16 as well. Let's not forget that the whole Russiagate conspiracy theory started because Podesta clicked on a phishing scam.


TG is the classic case of the reasonable person who is unfortunately overwhelmed by a toxic personality, the type of which she herself can't differentiate from rationale discourse. I truly do like much of what she says, and yet she ends up at so much paranoid nonsense. If you know Hawaii, she's a an archetypal Hawaiian type. Obama is an exception to that type; Roseanne a hyperbolic icon of it.

President is out of the question. She should come to the SLOG comments though, where she would undeniably be queen of the broken toys!


One more time: Why do so many of these asshole Boeing execs still have jobs? Dennis Muilenburg's was demoted (sort of, but not really) and I bet it didn't cost him a dime of his almost $2 millionn annual salary plus $13 million 2018 bonus.

If Boeing goes down (pun intended) because of the 737 Max debacle, it has nobody to blame but these greedy murderers running the company who put revenue and share price ahead of human lives.


Gabbard, really? Most everyone I know who watched the debates was (ahem) less than impressed with her, and a few had some choice descriptions. A Gabbard third-party run would likely implode early. The only "Democrat" (and he's not really one) who might pull that off is Sanders.


@14: Define "implode". The point isn't to win, it's to affect the election.


"I'm so goddamn sick of liberals attributing EVERY FUCKING THING to Russians. "

But this is Clinton we're talking about, comrade.


@1 "Tulsi is not a goddamn Russian agent."

No one said she was. Hillary Clinton didn't say she was, either. Tulsi is simply not very smart. Her attacks on Clinton were stupid. She completely missed the point, and that ignorance shows how incompetent she would be as commander and chief. Yeah, she served in the military. Big fucking deal. There was a time when damn near everyone served in the military. Most weren't qualified to be colonel, let alone general. But our current system -- where only a handful serve, and everyone else "thanks them for their service" leads to lionizing mediocre service members.

But back to the accusation. Clinton said Russians were "grooming her". Only an idiot would assume that means that Gabbard is working with the Russians. That isn't what is happening. Fox News loves her. There is real Republican admiration, if not support for her. Go read her Twitter feed. You can easily find Republicans saying "come over to our party". It doesn't take a political expert to see that there is a real possibility of her running as an independent. The Russians see this, and see this as a chance to once again make things messy for this country. That was their initial involvement in the election last time. They weren't trying to make Trump a puppet -- that was just a bonus that came late. They were trying to fuck things up in America (and the world), by helping Trump. Mission accomplished.

The point is, it makes sense for Russians to have all these bots ready. Fuck, it is what I would do if I worked for them. You watch Fox News, you see Gubbard, you see her flailing in the Democratic primary, but with real support by Republicans. You've played this game before. Get a candidate with a small, but very rapid fan base, and then amplify it. Create anonymous (or fake) people on Twitter or Facebook, saying things like "Fuck the Democrats -- their system is corrupt. Bernie was robbed. You should just run as an independent, girl". You figure she won't win, but maybe she will help Trump. Or maybe she will just be a giant distraction, and thus create more chaos in this politically chaotic country of ours. Either way, it makes a shitload of sense for the Russians to do this. But (and this part is important) -- they can do it without Gabbard's involvement.

A real professional (not a hack) would have called for an investigation. They would have said it seems possible that Russians are once again trying to mess with our electoral process. "I don't want the Russians helping me -- nor do I want the Russians helping anyone. That is why we need to pass the bill I voted for, blah, blah, blah".

Her attacks on the messenger are idiotic and juvenile.


Hillary Clinton spinning up rumors. How Trumpian of her.


"Thank you @HillaryClinton. You, the queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption, and personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party for so long, have finally come out from behind the curtain."
It sure sounds like trump, but it's TG.

"It's now clear that this primary is between you and me. Don't cowardly hide behind your proxies. Join the race directly."
This is proof that Gabbard is crazy.
Tulsi can't even crack 1% support.

As for the Russians, they are going to throw any shit at the wall they think will stick.
That being said, they probably don't need TG when they already have Stein.
I guess we'll find out soon enough.


"That alone should frighten all of us- that a political position against US imperialism is enough to make an accusation that you are an agent of a foreign government." --EL

Yes, and as terrifying as trump with his 'all criticism of ME is Fake News!' and 'a Free Press is an Enemy of the People!' (as must be anyone not bowing down -- all the way down -- to herr Furor). Repubs may (finally) be tiring of fake prez's governmental incompetenciees/malfeasances/nepotism.

"Get a candidate with a small, but very rapid [rabid, assumingly] fan base, and then amplify it." --Ross

(U.S.) Support for the majority of Bernie's
"fucking Socialistic!" policies is well over 50%.

Hell, even Republicans prefer Single Payer to US Corps
having to remain in the employee healthcare coverage business.


@20 -- Yeah, I meant rabid (not rapid). Most of the Trump supporters seem fairly slow -- not rapid at all.

As for Bernie, his support is/was more widespread, even if his supporters are extremely enthusiastic. If the Russians were involved in the last election on his behalf, it is most likely they were involved late, when it was obvious he was going to lose. It would have made sense to push forward the notion that "he was robbed", which in turn made former supporters less likely to switch to Hillary. I'm not saying that happened, but that would have been a reasonable strategy. Again, the whole idea is to stir discontent -- to make this divided country more divided. It is the same thing we did with them years ago (and probably do to them now). Actually having Bernie be the nominee would not be in Russia's best interest, because for all the talk of him being "outside the mainstream", he is a reasonable, experienced legislator, who would govern with a sensible hand. Having a wacko in office has been great for Russia, as they have stepped into the void left by our nonsensical foreign policy. It is also been good for China, as well as most autocratic regimes. They can point to friend and foe and say "you may not like us, but at least you know what you are going to get".


“ I'm so goddamn sick of liberals attributing EVERY FUCKING THING to Russians.”

Strawman. Misrepresentation of the facts. Not to mention an eye-rollingly overlong rant that I just couldn’t finish.

Putin’s operations to subvert American politics is a well documented fact.


Equally disturbing is Clinton’s discloser that Sawant’s girlfriend, Jill Stein, was and is a Russian Asset (just like Tulsi Gabbard). You follow the bread crumbs: Sawant = Stein = Putin = Kremlin = Putin = Stein = Sawant.


@23: I suggest you finish reading @1 for context instead of pouncing on the first thing that unglues you.


“It's now clear that this primary is between you and me”

Right, the primary is between someone polling in the low singles vs someone who isn’t running. What a buffoon.


@ 15 She wouldn't raise enough money to campaign nationwide and then she wouldn't attract enough voters to affect the election. She's like the rest of the ego driven pack "candidates" who should have bowed out gracefully a month or more ago. They can't read the writing on the wall becuase they're blinded by ambition.


She said she was a Russian asset, not an agent, sure if you want to be pedantic- equally have as little validity. She said they were grooming her for a third party run, two accusations there also apparently just made up out of thin air.

Look I think Tulsi is a thug, as I said. I don't trust her and I've got good reason to oppose any Hindutva aligned (or adjacent) imperialists- her antiwar stance is dishonest, her willingness to work with the right wing of the GOP is disgusting and it's not in her favor that she's only not a homophobe now because she salafists Muslims more.

But she is correct in her criticisms of the US military's dubious role in their forever war on terror, and it's frightening now to enter a timeline in which mainstream democrats can level accusations against someone like this with absolutely no evidence whatsoever- just a hunch- and liberals (who have made the CIA and FBI their heroes lately) fall over themselves to believe it.

If Clinton has any evidence to back up her gossip, she should trot that out instead of just smearing her. And it does matter- it brings attention to her, brings out her supporters, works as misdirection, keeps fanning the ludicrously overblown russiagate stuff, labels anyone who strays from the US imperial project as a Russian asset, Putin puppet, etc.

Meanwhile, average liberals yet again lose the forest for the trees, keep getting obsessed with palace intrigue. THey are angry that Clinton's emails were leaked- they were not angry about what Clinton actually said in them. They are angry that Trump attempted to make a deal with a foreign leader to get info on a political opponent- they are not angry about the corruption and nepotism that enriched HBiden in Ukraine. They are angry that Tulsi or Stein side with the people fighting terrorists in the Middle East- they are not angry that their own government enables the very terrorism they claim to fight. They are angry about collusion with Putin, they ignore the same with Bin Salman, etc.

I keep waiting for liberals to realize that the Democrats are every bit as corrupt as the Republicans and that the issue is systemic. But no, hey Liz Warren has a plan for reform. All she has to do is get it through the Senate, in cooperation with the DNC's general industry donors of course.

None of these people are on your side. Tulsi's scum. Hillary's richer and more powerful scum with loads more blood on her hands. And there's nothing but bad guys on every side in the Middle East, but if we are talking about lesser evils, I'm sorry to tell you but Putin is it. As depressing as that is. Of course, he'd do all the things we do as well if he were in our place. Stop aligning yourself with any of them. They are on the same side against us.


Also in case I haven't been clear, yes obviously Tulsi is right wing- she's a nationalist. It's what people get so wrong about her. She is not an anti-imperialist, she is not anti-war. She's simply anti-salafist, Hindutva, nationalist American. That means she doesn't fit in either party. She's probably a Democrat just because originally, when she entered politics, her donor base included a lot of dependency on the American Sangh, and those guys historically have voted Democrat, though as the diaspora becomes more wealthy in general and Modi becomes more popular, I think the richer and the more hardcore Hindu nationalists among them could switch to the GOP, especially as Trump takes them more towards nationalistic oligarchy & police state and away from religious evangelical conservativism (which is surely mostly dead now?). It's only the white supremacy of the GOP keeping them out right now. Once again, Hillary knows all of this, she has courted that right wing Indian vote herself, as did Obama, they both made super nice with Modi, and Hillary has recently been hanging out with Indian billionaires.

But back to Tulsi- yes of course she is right wing. She's right at home on Fox, she always has been. But she doesn't really fit into the GOP either.

Again, stop interpreting this through the lens of Russiagate. There are more things going on in the world. If Russian propaganda plays her up, so the fuck what- that really has jack shit to do with her. Foreign powers have propaganda. Domestic powers have to work to secure their own propaganda. You people freaking out about this, again- forest and trees. If you are watching cable news at all, you are consuming state propaganda, anywhere in the world.

The problem is that Americans have been trained out of ideology and they think politics is just about whether or not gay people have rights, if abortion is legal, if there are bigots in power. That's the tip of the iceberg folks- the only way to combat this bullshit is with actual political ideology, not with aligning with one side of corrupt politicians over another.

Honestly I think the problem is that liberals did well in school, then the system mostly worked for them, and they honestly believed the indoctrination about the US (democracy, checks and balances, reasonable people making decisions, free press) and felt they were the cultural vanguards (against the Republican chuds and religious fundies) because they like gay people and believe women should control their bodies etc- and it's blowing their minds to learn to think about anything systemically.

All these "next things" that are going to bring down Trump (pee tape, Mueller report, various hearings, now impeachment)- that's what liberals have wasted four years on. And what's the best case scenario? President Pence? Going back to Obama era politics?- when we were expanding the survelliance state, bailing out the banks, rounding up millions in concentration camps, drone killing people on secret lists, bailing out banks, making deals with salafists, overthrowing functional governments?

Liberals have to let mainstream dems go and they have to start thinking bigger, structurally, internationally, along class lines. Turn off the cable news. Clinton is a hack. Tulsi is a hack. Joe Biden is a hack. Obama was terrible. You have to recognize it, sit with it. I'm sorry, it sucks, but it's true. Pelosi was not mocking Trump with that clap. Watch the clip. She was earnestly clapping for him. She's narrowed the scope of impeachment. It will die in the Senate if it even makes it to the vote. And the DNC will get it's general election big donor funding and same old same old straight to Warren. These people are not on your side. They are playing you like a fiddle.


@28 & 29

I agree with almost everything you said.
In fact, I agree with every single point you made except one.

"...if we are talking about lesser evils, I'm sorry to tell you but Putin is it."

There are only two types of people who would say such a thing.
People on Putin's payroll, or people who have been brainwashed by Putin's propaganda machine.

If you're not being paid by Putin do yourself a favor and shut off RT.


The big story really should not be Gabbard's support from Russia, it's her support from Bannon, David Duke, and similar assholes. The domestic assholes are less constrained, and if anybody's using her, it's more likely them.

Gabbard has been supported by RT and by botnets with Russian profiles, but what exactly does "groomed to run 3rd party" mean anyway? Sure they'd like her to, but I haven't seen evidence they've moved to influence that decision on her part, and I'm not sure how that would even look short of unlikely outright conspiracy.

But we can say all this without even caring whether her own beliefs align with anyone. They don't have to for her to be useful. Or anyone else -- hell, Trump appears to have no fixed beliefs whatsoever, and he's a grand piñata for thugs.


"Gabbard has been supported by RT and by botnets with Russian profiles ..."

Yet EmmaLiz (@1, @28, @29) says that isn't true. If it is true, then everything that Hillary Clinton said was true. Because -- and this is very important now -- Clinton said the Russians were helping Gabbard. She did not say that Gabbard was working with the Russians. Those are two different things. Gabbard assumed they were the same, which is why she is an idiot. EmmaLiz seems to conflate the two, and then staunchly denies the latter.

"what exactly does "groomed to run 3rd party" mean anyway?"

Pretty simple, really. Just read the latest Twitter feed. You can find lots of (alleged) Republicans saying they would vote for her. Maybe these are real people, maybe they are bots -- quite possibly it is a mix. If you are a politician -- and one with an unrealistic view of their political chances -- then of course you start thinking about a third party run. This is especially true if the Democrats nominate someone that the chattering classes see as "too far to the left". It is especially true if they elect someone old (which again seems likely). In every race there are second thoughts about the nominee -- this will happen, for sure. At that point, someone with the ego and lack of intelligence of Gabbard -- someone who is young an extremely attractive -- someone who has appeared (and been lauded) on Fox News, yet is a Democratic legislator -- would of course consider a third party run. It isn't too hard for bots to help that along.


Beto O'Rourke and other democratic candidates came in in support of Gabbard that she doesn't deserve this.

What was the value in Hillary saying these things? It's inherently convoluted, malleable for misinterpretation, spin, conspiracy theories, and raising the general angst when that's the last thing we needed.

Hillary did this because she is a very deeply disturbed person, grasping at anything to keep her in the limelight in some pathetic quest for respectability after being totally humiliated in 2016.

The best thing she could do for a weary nation is to say put in Chappaqua and tend to her needlepoint and crocheting.


"Gabbard has been supported by RT and by botnets with Russian profiles ..."

Come on, Gabbard's anti perpetual war message has a following without the Russians. If left wingers had access to major media they wouldn't need to go on RT.

Fact of the matter is giving secret speeches to bankers at $400k a pop did a lot more damage to Clinton than anything else, possibly including misogyny. Sure the Russians used cyber-warfare, like we do, but there is little evidence it played a major role in 2016. There were 3rd party candidates before cyber-warfare even existed and corporate Democrats already refused to acknowledge that their neoliberal policies and the betrayal of their base were the root cause of their electoral losses.


My opposition to Tulsi Gabbard has nothing to do with her being a Russian foreign agent. While I used to be a fan of Hillary Clinton (I voted for her during her run for the Senate in NY), her brand began to sour on me after the 2008 SC primary, and it just got worse. Whatever she tweets or posts or says in an interview, I just don’t care.

What I do take issue with is the Gabbard family connection to a religio-political cult led by a homophobic bigot named Chris Butler. Her father has spent his entire life campaigning against LGBT people. She herself was vocally hateful toward LGBT people, and it’s not hard to find recent video clips of her saying some horrendously bigoted shit on YouTube. She won endorsements from David Duke and Richard Spencer, who are quite familiar with Mr Butler and his new religious movement based in Hawaii, which they think gives them some insight into Gabbard’s deeper feelings on the topic of LGBT rights. Whatever she has said publicly since she got elected, she’s been steeping in homophobia since birth. It’s hard to believe that she had a sudden change of ideology after being completely surrounded by violently homophobic sentiments her whole life. I don’t believe in Pauline visions on the road to Damascus, and I don’t believe Tulsi Gabbard has changed one bit.

He foreign policy views do favor Russia’s, however, I think that is a function of her very close relationship with Mehandra Modi, whose BJP political party openly describes itself as the original form of fascism. Modi’s foreign policy happens to mirror Putin’s. And this largely results from Mr Butler’s ongoing attempt to get the government of India to recognize his religious cult as a legitimate strain of Hinduism.


It didn't have to be true, Clinton just power played a nip in the bud by forcing Gabbard to be put on the defensive and in the spotlight when she was most vulnerable. She is simply using her Haoshoku no Haki on the weak willed who always follow their dicks to their demise like so many howling cartoon wolfmen in zoot zuits prostrating before Holli Would. Go take a piss and get with the program you unworthy vile swine!!


And before I get too carried away here, let me remind all that higher level ranks of taunt attract the attentions of more of the masses, as a means of protecting the back line and misdirecting and foiling propaganda assaults from the truth. Make no mistake that right now the global Cybermercenary War for the truth, that is, the Next incarnation of Big Brother and Emmanuel Goldstein for you to spout seven minutes hate at and revere accordingly, backsey-frontsey pell mell Bedlam.

As such, no matter how cheap the Rogue kidney shots or unsportsmanlike the pocket sand in the eye, never underestimate Krillin because he will destructo disc (kienzan) yo ass in half while you are blinded from his solar flare (taiyoken) technique. Don't get Yamchad's by Saibamen.


@EmmaLiz and all the other Gabbard stans and/or Hillary haters in this thread, you are missing several key points. As someone who has been called a Bernie Bro by a number of people, one can lay the main blame for Hillary's lost correctly on her shitty campaign, and still recognize that the Russians ran a number of ops to interfere with our 2016 election. I saw this as an Internet savvy Bernie fan, watching a flood of obvious bots trying to get us to ignore all of Bernie's hard work campaigning for Hillary to stop Trump, and instead vote Stein to send a message.

Hillary Clinton never called Tulsi Gabbard a Russian asset. Seriously, watch that interview again and read the transcript. She never called out Tulsi Gabbard by name. She didn't even say anything more specific than "a current Democratic candidate." What has me laughing is that it is a very old school teacher's trick. You know someone is guilty of some offense, and but not who, so you act like you know more and look who takes the bait. Tulsi fell for Hillary's trap.

Keep in mind, while I think Hillary is a shitty campaigner, I've never doubted her political skills in other areas. Her ego may get in her way as a candidate, but she is a brilliant policy wonk. Honestly, I don't think Bill Clinton would ever have been President if he had married a less politically astute person. Hillary knew what she was doing, baited her trap, and Tulsi fell for it, and it is having exactly the effect Hillary wanted, and then some. Anyone else surprised by how quick Andrew Yang jumped to her defense?


@30 Adam,

The US overthrows the dictators which keep the salafists out. The Russians support those dictators. Now I'd rather get rid of all of them but it doesn't make me an agent of Putin to say that Assad is preferable to ISIS. Just like Saddam and Gaddafi were preferable to Iraq/Libya with salafists running wild. Just like the Ayatollah, a backwards fundamentalist, is preferable to salafists. Putin is on the side of maintaining those powers against Salafists. The US is on the side of overthrowing them and then supposedly fighting the Salafists who fill the void, all the while funding and arming their allies. I stop short of conspiracy theory that says the US deliberately spreads salafism around the world so they can follow with their pipelines and military installations- I think it's incidental and not intentional. Nonetheless, it happens, and if you want a powerful figure to explain it, look at CSPAN footage of Clinton addressing congress on this very subject. All sides are monstrous, but yes unfortunately, the Shia, the Assadists and their Russian backers are often the lesser evil- most of the time in fact.


The fact that Russians run ads about loads of people- including perhaps Gabbard- doesn't mean that Gabbard is a Russian asset nor that she is being groomed by the Russians nor that she is considering a third party run. It's baseless accusation.

No time now to read the rest, I'll come back later if the conversation is still going on.


@Wandering Stars

Exactly re: Butler's cult. It's likely they're behind her career still, btw. She's funded by the American Sangh and has connections with the RSS- she's fash at heart, as I said, just not fitting in nicely with the GOP. Russians have nothing to do with it. She's not even Indian nor are her parents of Indian descent, neither of them, something many Indians even don't seem to know. Butler's group is a cult offshoot of the Hare Krishnas, but they have money and connections with loads of sangh parivar groups. Disturbing stuff indeed, either directly or indirectly, I can't tell. Either way, Tulsi's scum, as I said. But she's not a fucking Russian asset nor being groomed by them. There's more ways to be scummy under the sun than liberals can imagine.


BTW Wandering STar,

As I'm trying to explain, yes her foreign policy (in the middle east anyway) do favor Putin's, but this isn't because of Modi or Putin. It's because she, Modi and Putin are all anti-salafists.

Honestly I think Americans don't understand this- maybe not here even in the comment section. So I'll try it in a really simple way because I'm just realizing how little people get this.

Salafism is a fundamentalist and extremist form of SUNNI Islam that originated in Saudi Arabia and Egypt and was exported - deliberately- from Saudi Arabia with funding from the royal family (unofficially) and rich Saudi businessment. For a long time, this was done with the support of the US both as a way to counter rising Pan Arab nationalism and also communism. This is how the US was fighting along side Bin Laden in Afghanistan against the Soviets and also with Salafists in Europe later on. It's why Clinton and Bush were both working with the Taliban despite knowing about what Salafists were doing in Afghanistan, it's good for business. Now I don't think the US had any idea what it would blow up to, but there you go. We have been roughly on the same side as them for a long time. After 911, the Saudis officially denounced them, and I relaly believe that most of their government as well as most of the US government, wishes these assholes did not exist- it's not a bunch of evil people make decisions. Nonetheless, it's Saudis that spread this shit around the world despite official policy, They fund it, they arm it, sometimes the US cooperated.

Now on the other side are the people who have managed to control the spread of Salafism, and that includes strong arm dictators such as Gaddafi, Assad, Putin, Sadaam Hussein, etc. It is no accident that when the US removed these people from power, the Salafists swarmed in and took power in that void- often picking up discarded US weapons on the way. After this happened in Iraq you'd think the US would've learnd their lesson, but no, they did the same thing again in Libya. Then when there was a movement against Assad- which was popular in origin - the US rushed in to fund the FSA which has been entirely a US creation for years by now- prolonging the war there with the hope (long since discarded) of removing Assad too. It's the Russians that stopped that from happening. Now I'm no fan of Assad or the Russians- they are both brutal- but both of them are better at keeping salafists out of their borders than are post - US regime change governments, see Libya and Iraq.

Likewise the main enemy - for decades- and the most successful are the Iranians. They are SHIA and despite being called the biggest state exporter of terrorism, they are not affiliated with any of the terrorists that most Americans should/do give a shit about. They are likely to blow up Israeli embassies and fund Palestinian fighters or Houthis in Yemen or whatever- those accusations are all true best i can tell. But they are not the people blowing up tubes and buildings in the West and beheading people and recruting in Europe. Al Qaeda, ISIS, Boko Haram, the Chechnyans, in short all the brutal folks Americans are supposedly fighting in their WAR ON TERROR- they are all, every last one of them, salafists. And Iran has been the most successful state on the planet in keeping them suppressed.

So if you are fighting a war on terror- if that's actually your goal, to stop the rise of people like ISIS, then why in god's name are you removing all of their enemies and funding their allies? Putin, despite being a dictator and a thug, is actually fighting salafism and doing so successfully, as he is allying himself wiht the Iranians, with Assad, etc. Basically the US is on the wrong side.

And I'm not saying that the US actually directly aids them since 911 (though in some cases it appears that way, see JAN in Syria or see Mossad with Jundallah or the weapons smuggled from Libya to Iraq/Syria- personally I can't tell how much of this happened with the US knowledge or is incidental and what is rumor)- but at least post 911 US foreign policy no doubt would prefer they all disappeared. And yet time and again, they are fighting the same enemies and supporting the same allies as the Salafists. And the reason is simple- US foreign policy isn't actually about fighting terrorism, it's about maintaining regional hegemony. If they can do this by keeping a brutal but pro-US market-friendly dictatorship afloat, they will. See Saudi Arabia. But if that is not possible and the alternative is a functioning state that is either closed off economically or more aligned with China or Russia, than the next goal of the US is to maintain a military presence there or prolong war before allowing another sphere of hegemony to rise up.

Now the way this circles back to Tulsi is that Modi and the India is doing the same thing- they are likewise trying to fight salafism, see Kashmir and the long history with Pakistan which has an inteliigence agency that is simultaneously aligned with both the US and with salafists. So Modi and Putin's goals are more aligned in terms of their tactics against salafis. This does not mean that they are aligned otherwise- India has a long history of trying to walk a middle path between competing global powers and India also wants to do business with the US. This third way is where Tulsi is coming from, and this is why she seems to not quite fit in anywhere in US foreign policy. She's not playing exactly the same game as traditional Dems and Reps.

To liberals it's narrowed down to Putin= bad, so the idea that something is deeply fucked up about US foreign policy and that Putin might be right about some things makes someone sound like they are a Russian asset or agent or puppet or whatever. And so you end up with a lot of right wingers and right-wing-adjacent (like libertarians, see Ron & Rand) siding with Putin on a lot of these things. Conservatives know more about this than do liberals, believe it or not, the connections with Bannon above are accurate. They see that Putin's foreign policy in the region makes more sense. And on the surface, they are right.

Thing is, Putin is just playing the other side of the same game, and if he were a Saudi ally or if it served him to do so, Russia would be in the same positiion that he is. So I'm not actually advocating for supporting him- he's a thug and going for a brand of post-nation-state oligarchy or anarchocapitalism that makes me sick.

But the American side is evil too, and I see no reason why so many liberals are rallying behind the American military industrial complex or police state. It's bad guys on all sides.


@35 "If it is true"

Clinton accusations against Stein and Gabbard are outrageous given she doesn't have a shred of evidence to substantiate her incredible statements. In fact, her views are better known as conspiracy theories.



"Hillary Clinton never called Tulsi Gabbard a Russian asset."

Yes, and Donald Trump never asked Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate Biden.

Hillary and Donald know there's no need to be explicit when you don't need to be. Besides, it gives cover for the sycophants who support you.



Leo Strauss was a political philosopher many consider to be the intellectual ancestor of modern American neoconservatism. Strauss believed that classical liberalism, while good economically, carried within it the seeds for its own destruction, in that it encouraged people to question everything. On the surface, that sounds laudable, but taken to an extreme, Strauss believed it would lead to nihilism. To counter this, he advocated for a politics that presented all conflicts as binary-there was one side that epitomized our good- and by definition, that would be “us”- and one side that epitomized pure evil-“them”. Strauss argued that American politicians had to frame everything in this manner to avoid a fragmented individualism where nobody believed anything meant anything at all, and nothing could get done, as we would all be directionless individuals refusing to cooperate with each other.

This is why most Americans have no concept of a conflict in which it is hard to tell who the good guys are and who the bad guys are. World War 2 is discussed at length, because it was easy to see that at least one side was evil, and therefore by definition their opponents good. World War 1 and the War of 1812 are frequently ignored entirely, because those conflicts were ambiguous.

This is also why the Middle East situation you described into post to which I reply is largely undiscussed. Salafism is horrific when you see gay men being thrown off buildings or killed by having a bulldozer knock the bricks from a wall over them so they are crushed, or when you see women beheaded in public executions for not marrying the husband they have been told to marry- you won’t see the docudrama Death of a Princess played here in America, because it stirs up the very thing Strauss feared, the questioning of an ally upon whom we rely for oil on the basis of their moral deficits. Shia isn’t that much better when you see the Ayatollahs ordering the assassination of writers like Salman Rushdie. And when the two are in conflict, an American will look at t(em both and ask which ones are the good guys- and there are no good guys.

Ukraine’s government is corrupt, run by the Far Right, and granted a doctoral degree to no less than David Duke. Putin is also corrupt and a figure of the political Far Right. There’s no angels in the fight over the Crimea, both sides are kinda fucked up. But to us, that’s impossible, just as it was impossible for us to conceive that Sakhashvili in Georgia was not a good guy because his conflict was also with Putin, and to our minds, anyone fighting the bad guys must be the good guys.

What do you do when there are no good guys? What side do you pick when everyone in the fight is an asshole? We threw in with the Mujahideen because they fought the Soviets, and we could not conceive of the USSR as anything other than evil. The Mujahideen of 1990 became the Taliban of 2001. The Soviet puppet government allowed women to wear miniskirts on the streets of Kabul, increased the literacy rate and installed the country’s sanitation system, and one of their lead opponents, whom we backed, was Osama Bin Laden. When that guy flew some airplanes into our buildings, the one thing we couldn’t discuss was, you know, we made that guy who he was. If we hadn’t gotten involved in the Soviet-Afghan war, Bin Laden likely would have been killed on the battlefield in the 1990’s by a Russian tank. But again, if the Soviets were evil, then by definition the Mujahideen were seen as good.

It’s all white hatted cowboy versus black hatted cowboy. This no appreciation for anything more complicated than that. And that is by design. Mass media feeds us the good versus evil narrative and politicians stick that trope onto US Foreign policy to sell the public on the idea of backing one side or opposing another. They do this because Strauss told them to do otherwise means never gettin* anything done, as the public will question everything and everyone indefinitely and get lost in all the subtlety and nuance. It’s not that they think you’re stupid, it’s that they want you to be stupid.

So the Russians are Mordor. An oversimplified land of total evil who is the global puppet master behind everyone we distrust. It’s Tolkien on steroids. Or, to use Strauss’ personal favorite television show- Gunsmoke.

India on the other hand is a country we don’t criticize much. We don’t understand Hinduism at all, or what the differences are between the various forms of it. Most Americans couldn’t tell the difference between Modi and Ghandi. There’s too much nuance to that, and we just dont do nuance very well.


I’m just happily surprised that Tulsi made it through all of those tweets without robotically saying “regime-change war ... regime-change war.”

@EmmaLiz, if you want people to actually read your demented, Russia-bot rants, you might consider learning how to edit your own writing.


What is more pathetic: Hillary Clinton claiming that everytime she does not get her way it is a vast, international conspiracy against her, or the hundreds of slack jawed sycophants who jump up from the mud to defend any and all insane fantasies that ooze out of Clinton's mouth?

This whole thing is hysterical, by the way. How long until everyone outside of the Clinton Machine/DNC's good graces is a Russian plant?



My vote is for the syncophants. To run for POTUS requires a massive ego-after all, you’re basically telling the entire world you think you can run the whole show, which is about as arrogant as it gets. If you’re Third Party, maybe not so much, because only the delusional think a Third Party candidate can win the POTUS race. But if your hat is in the ring for either of the two biggies, yep, your ego is fucking cosmic. If you actually win a nomination, you enter a hall of mirrors where for a while, everywhere you look, it’s you, on every screen. So to go right from that to loser has to hurt, kinda like how Icarus must have felt. That sort of fall would leave anybody sore and bitter.

What’s sad is the people who aren’t the candidate. If you really believed she was Superwoman, possessed of godlike powers and incapable of losing, you’re way more delusional than anyone who actually ran for the office. There are no superheroes in real life. These candidates aren’t actually gods, they’re just people who fuck up and fail sometimes. If, three years after Clinton’s wings melted from the sun, you’re still hiding in your mother’s basement like Glenn Beck with a chalkboard drawing lines between the figures of your conspiracy theory, man, that is just sad.

Clinton isn’t insane. She’s got a badly bruised ego sustained from a very long fall. Like anyone else in pain, she’s gonna cry out and say some shit. We can have some empathy for her. Just don’t let that rise to Glenn Beck levels.


Not only does moscow mitch not mention trump he makes multiple references to obama, these people are sick in the head.

Also, I don't give a shit about the tulsi story but I wish hillary would just shut the fuck up and disappear already.


Hillary can be a terrible candidate and a trash person while still being entitled to her opinion.

Gabbard can have a few good ideas and still have some very bad ideas and beliefs while unknowingly advancing Putin's agenda.

Putin can occasionally be on what you believe to be the "right side" while being a megalomaniacal dictator bent on world domination.

RT will run shows by "leftists" as long as they continue to push the false narrative that Putin "isn't all bad" and is sometimes "the lesser evil".


Jill Stein will always be a dimwitted tool.


Things are never as simple as the propaganda you ingest would lead you to believe.



I agree with most of your points, although I would attach a rider.

The reason why Leftists accept RT’s offer for a platform is because nobody else with that kind of budget or reach will. Chris Hedges is a respectable journalist who ought to be on MSNBC. If they’d offer him a slot, he wouldn’t need to take the Kremlin’s offer, and we’d all be better off for it.

The other rider I’d like to attach is that Putin’s ego is indeed global, but he isn’t going to achieve his desired ends. Russia today (pun intended) is not what the USSR was. The USSR briefly surpassed the United States in terms of economic growth in the 1960’s. Russia as it exists now has an economy the size of Portugal, and it’s a one trick pony. Everything depends on the price of oil. Should oil prices drop, Russia is screwed.

Now, the media will hype Putin as a puppet master of the world, because well, Putin actually thinks he is a global puppet master, so why not? But ya know, if we took every politician with delusions of grandeur that seriously, we’d all be so terrified of even setting foot outside our doors for fear of invasion from some far away country. It sells ad space on news websites and commercials on TV, but it’s all just hype. In Russia itself, and the areas on its borders, yes, he is a terrifying figure. But his reach doesn’t go that far beyond the Oder-Nisse.


"Chris Hedges is a respectable journalist who ought to be on MSNBC. If they’d offer him a slot, he wouldn’t need to take the Kremlin’s offer, and we’d all be better off for it." --Wandering Stars

If only Hedges had signed on (with the Corporateers) for Bush's illegal invasion of Iraq (but what about the WMDs?!), he'd (possibly) (probably not be) still be at the New York Times.

If you wanna get your Message out, rejecting Mega Corps' world view means STFU already. If it don't sell Cars, Wall Street, Boeing/Raytheon and Big Phucking Pharma/Koch's Klean Koal (plus EXXON), it don't fucking Count.

Small wonder, Repubs have been able to move the Goalposts nearly to Nazi Germany. Give 'em (and trumpfy!) a little more Time and they'll surely get there.


@49 RT gives space to US dissidents (left wingers outside the duopoly) who are excluded from appearing on US corporate media. None of them have to support Putin the dictator in any way as long as they oppose US foreign policy and leftists have opposed imperialism long before Putin even existed. Smearing these same dissidents, by calling them Russian assets, is not out of character for imperialists like Clinton. Her predecessors have a long history of it.

I'll call Putin a dictator every chance I get but I also acknowledge that Russia is entitled to its sphere of influence as long as it doesn't abuse it. A big part of Putin's foreign policy has been in reaction to the West encroaching into what Russia considers its historical power footprint rather than world domination. Russia and Putin have to be strongly opposed because of their petroleum based policies that refuse to address climate change more than anything else (some claim Russia was behind climategate and the hacking of climate scientists in 2009 btw)


Tulsi Gabbard is a religious racist wingnut ultra-nationalist in Democratic sheepswool. And in keeping with EmmaLiz droolingly overlong boorish concern troll rants here is an outline of Gabbard's sins:

• Said "it's time to move on" from the Mueller Report immediately after it was released.

• Said indicting Trump would lead to a Civil War (Hm what a familiar talking point)

• Said there is "no compelling cause" for impeachment and that "Congress needs to exercise oversight over the information that’s been leaked" and that, regarding impeachment, "what I think most people will see is, ‘Hey, this is another move by Democrats to get rid of Donald Trump,’ further deepening the already hyperpartisan divides that we have in this country.”

• Lawsuit against Google for the false claim of 'only defending liberals'

• Attacked, then resigned from, the DNC (likely in preparation for a 3rd party run)

• Said she would drop Julian Assange charges (Via Newsweek, 2019)

• Defended WikiLeaks in their 2016 interference: ‘spurred some necessary change’ (Via APNews, 2019)

• Touted working for anti-gay group that backed conversion therapy (Via CNN, 2019)

• During the 4th democratic debate in 2019, Gabbard parroted Russian disinformation claiming the US was arming Al Queda in Syria.

• During the 4th democratic debate, she called for ending sanctions against the genocidal Bashar al-Assad. Assad is America's enemy and Russia's close ally

• In 2017, Tulsi went to Syria and met with Bashar al-Assad, who is America's enemy and Russia's close ally

• Went on Fox's Tucker Carlson's show and used Project Veritas as proof

• She’s an Islamophobe. Each stance she takes is usually one that involves making people more fearful of Muslims. She also has ties to the RSS in India, a group founded based off of Nazi ideals.

• Tulsi Gabbard comes from a family of conservative activists, most famous for their opposition to gay marriage in Hawaii:

• Tulsi Gabbard is rated "F" by Progressive Punch for voting with Republicans, despite the strong progressive lean of her district

• Tulsi Gabbard was vetted to be in Trump's cabinet at Steve Bannon's suggestion

• Tulsi Gabbard has also been praised multiple times by Steve Bannon, Trump's former strategist and prolific white nationalist propagandist

• Tulsi Gabbard declined to join 169 Democrats in condemning Trump for appointing Steve Bannon to his cabinet

• Tulsi Gabbard isn't anti-war. She's a self-described hawk against terrorists. Her narrow objections center around efforts to spread democracy: "In short, when it comes to the war against terrorists, I'm a hawk," Gabbard said. "When it comes to counterproductive wars of regime change, I'm a dove."

• Tulsi Gabbard was praised by conservative media for publicly challenging President Barack Obama over his refusal to use the term "Islamic extremism" when discussing terrorism

• Tulsi Gabbard voted with Republicans to block Syrian refugees

• Tulsi Gabbard has multiple connections to Hindu nationalists

• Tulsi Gabbard was one of only 3 representatives to not condemn Assad for gassing Syrian civilians and the only Democrat

• Tulsi Gabbard has introduced legislation pushed by GOP-megadonor, Sheldon Adelson

• Tulsi was later awarded a "Champions of Freedom" medal at Adelson's annual gala in 2016

• Tulsi was endorsed by David Duke for 2020


Cant vote for anyone who worships 'Guru Chris'


"Her narrow objections center around efforts to spread democracy"

Sending people back to the stone age or arming reactionaries does not spread democracy so she may have a point there.



You will never convince an RT viewer of anything using facts.


@56 for the record I don't watch RT (climate change coverage is disgraceful) and I agree that Gabbard is a social conservative so it's not at all surprising that she appeals to some conservatives who favor isolationism. Still I find her opposition to regime change wars commendable and she is progressive on many other important issues like healthcare, climate and the environment, TPP and NAFTA, etc


Her opposition to "regime change wars" is hypocritical highly selective nonsense and only exists to shamelessly pander to libertarian dipshits.

She isn't a "social conservative." She's a god damned rightwing nationalist.

And no, she isn't progressive on shit —she's vague as fuck. Her eventual mention of climate change is buried on her shitty policy pages. The only semi-standout is "ending subsidies to big fossil fuel and agribusiness corporations." And even all that is buried.

There is literally no other concrete policy proposal on climate change other than vague bullshit that literally every republican says. But no "cap and trade" no "carbon tax," no support for expansion or enforcement of a single current climate treaty and no mention of one. Nothing.

She's full of shit.


As Tulsi's star rises, I'll enjoy the fits and conniptions on display here at the stranger.
I've got my popcorn handy, let the show begin!


@ Wandering Star,

Old thread, but wanted to say that I appreciate that comment about Strauss. It's a good point- one I had not considered regarding individualism and trying to figure out how to evaluate situations. At the core, I've seen that liberals lack an ideological framework to evaluate information - or more specifically, they are not aware that they are evaluating a situation within an ideological framework- and so they tend to fall for narratives as pushed by mainstream media. I had not thought of this as being a larger product of culture rather than just of liberal capitalism, so that is very interesting. Thanks.