The Future Of The Democratic Party.

[Joe Hutch]

'We've come to a point where every four years this national fever rises up — this hunger for the Saviour, the White Knight, the Man on Horseback — and whoever wins becomes so immensely powerful, like Nixon is now, that when you vote for President today you're talking about giving a man dictatorial power for four years. I think it might be better to have the President sort of like the King of England — or the Queen — and have the real business of the presidency conducted by... a City Manager-type, a Prime Minister, somebody who's directly answerable to Congress, rather than a person who moves all his friends into the White House and does whatever he wants for four years. The whole framework of the presidency is getting out of hand. It's come to the point where you almost can't run unless you can cause people to salivate and whip each other with big sticks. You almost have to be a rock star to get the kind of fever you need to survive in American politics.'

Hunter S Thompson, Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail.

 

[kendo]

'We've come to a point where every four years this national fever rises up — this hunger for the Saviour, the White Knight, the Man on Horseback — and whoever wins becomes so immensely powerful, like Nixon is now, that when you vote for President today you're talking about giving a man dictatorial power for four years. I think it might be better to have the President sort of like the King of England — or the Queen — and have the real business of the presidency conducted by... a City Manager-type, a Prime Minister, somebody who's directly answerable to Congress, rather than a person who moves all his friends into the White House and does whatever he wants for four years. The whole framework of the presidency is getting out of hand. It's come to the point where you almost can't run unless you can cause people to salivate and whip each other with big sticks. You almost have to be a rock star to get the kind of fever you need to survive in American politics.'

Hunter S Thompson, Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail.

A fine introduction to American politics of the time. Thankfully, things are so much improved now...aren't they?

 

[DonQuixote99]

In all honesty, so what?

Don't know, in all honesty. Its perfectly possible that the Russians just like her positions and see her as useful in shaping debate here, without being remotely close to 'running' her. Still....

Another little thing I've recently learned is that she's on the 'advisory board' of a Koch-created and funded foreign affairs institute, and doesn't want it known... https://www.civilbeat.org/2019/03/t...res-leave-out-ties-to-koch-funded-think-tank/ That's with Catholic University in D.C. And she was in job talks with the Trump transition team (which didn't work out). Putting that with her illiberal positions on abortion and LGBTQ rights (since revised), I get the impression that this National Guard major is a social conservative by inclination, who went Democratic to get elected in heavily-Democratic Hawaii.

With what backing, I'd like to know? Of some not-friends of the Democratic Party, I suspect. Just suspicions, though, so I could be all wrong. I now think I'm wrong to label her a Trumpian demagogue, and I take that back. That was based on this thing posted here by Max in Dec 2016: https://pinkfishmedia.net/forum/threads/the-war-you-dont-see.195781/page-16#post-2997460 But actually, the headline from Max's dodgy source puts words in her mouth she didn't exactly say.

 

[Tony L]

Don't know, in all honesty. Its perfectly possible that the Russians just like her positions and see her as useful in shaping debate here, without being remotely close to 'running' her. Still....

For a long time now the Russian strategy appears to be one of playing all extremes against the centre with a clear aim of destabilisation/creating division to the extent of actively promoting/helping platform both the far-left and far-right simultaneously. Adam Curtis had this strategy well sussed with his 2016 film Hypernormalisation and nothing since has suggested any real deviation from this approach. Gangster/oligarch capitalism recognises opportunity in political and societal chaos.

 

[maxflinn]

Don't know, in all honesty. Its perfectly possible that the Russians just like her positions and see her as useful in shaping debate here, without being remotely close to 'running' her. Still....

And it's perfectly possible that 'the Russians' have nothing whatsoever to do with her, and an outfit full of ex-Pentagon people called 'New Knowledge' -which just got caught by the New York Times fabricating Russian troll accounts on behalf of the Democratic Party (and even got banned from Facebook) completely fabricated the notion that 'Russian bots' were supporting her, then NBC ran with their fake news putting out their sensationalised smear-story and the result is the likes of you and Yank get fed yet more bullshit which you both seemed to accept as fact at face-value, without even investigating further.

NBC News, to Claim Russia Supports Tulsi Gabbard, Relies on Firm Just Caught Fabricating Russia Data for the Democratic Party

Another little thing I've recently learned

Can you define 'learned' in this context?

Is it:

Learned = absorbed lies?

is that she's on the 'advisory board' of a Koch-created and funded foreign affairs institute, and doesn't want it known... https://www.civilbeat.org/2019/03/t...res-leave-out-ties-to-koch-funded-think-tank/ That's with Catholic University in D.C.

Debunked here:

And she was in job talks with the Trump transition team (which didn't work out). Putting that with her illiberal positions on abortion and LGBTQ rights (since revised), I get the impression that this National Guard major is a social conservative by inclination, who went Democratic to get elected in heavily-Democratic Hawaii.

With what backing, I'd like to know? Of some not-friends of the Democratic Party, I suspect. Just suspicions, though, so I could be all wrong. I now think I'm wrong to label here a Trumpian demagogue, and I take that back. That was based on this thing posted here by Max in Dec 2016: https://pinkfishmedia.net/forum/threads/the-war-you-dont-see.195781/page-16#post-2997460 But actually, the headline from Max's dodgy source puts words in her mouth she didn't exactly say.

Maybe you'll retreat from the conspiratorial direction NBC sent you in now?

Tulsi isn't a Russian agent

 

[vuk]

tony.

you may want to watch this presentation instead of relying on adam curtis for explanations.

 

[DonQuixote99]

Maybe you'll retreat from the conspiratorial direction NBC sent you in now?

Tulsi isn't a Russian agent

Your guy pooh-poohs the idea of a Tulsi/Koch connection, with no more evidence than I would have if I said she was totally a creature of Charles Koch. Neither of us really know.

But I did do some retreating. You can consider the same, or you can go for Total Dominance!

 

[DonQuixote99]

Maybe you'll retreat from the conspiratorial direction NBC sent you in now?

Tulsi isn't a Russian agent

BTW, your debunking of the Tulsi/Russia story seems to consist totally of say "Tainted source! Tainted source!' Rather like the Republican defense of Trump by harping on Michael Cohen being a 'convicted liar.' Does not refute the content itself.

 

[DonQuixote99]

tony.

you may want to watch this presentation instead of relying on adam curtis for explanations.

Vuk, I am genuinely curious, did you watch the whole one-hour 38 minutes of it? Or did you find some part of interest cited somewhere? Not trying to knock you down, just want to understand the context of the posting.

 

[vuk]

Vuk, I am genuinely curious, did you watch the whole one-hour 38 minutes of it? Or did you find some part of interest cited somewhere? Not trying to knock you down, just want to understand the context of the posting.

yes, i watched the whole thing last night. i really like thomas frank and i have read the book -- which he is, in part, promoting, though the discussion is essentially a broad one of american politics with an emphasis on what went so horribly wrong with the democratic party (hence the relevance here).

as i said before, when it comes to long videos like this, i download them and watch via media streamer in the evening, as an alternative to regular television.

 

[maxflinn]

Your guy pooh-poohs the idea of a Tulsi/Koch connection, with no more evidence than I would have if I said she was totally a creature of Charles Koch. Neither of us really know.

But I did do some retreating. You can consider the same, or you can go for Total Dominance!

She's been a vocal anti-war campaigner for years. Possibly the most outspoken anti-war Congressman (I believe women are called Congressmen?) of them all.

The Koch brothers are not anti-war.

It's not a good look, certainly, but I don't see any reason to worry, unless one considers the likelihood that she's the total opposite of everything she's stood for for years.

Not likely, IMO.

 

[maxflinn]

BTW, your debunking of the Tulsi/Russia story seems to consist totally of say "Tainted source! Tainted source!' Rather like the Republican defense of Trump by harping on Michael Cohen being a 'convicted liar.' Does not refute the content itself.

The so-called 'cyber security company' New Knowledge are totally discredited. They fabricated Russian troll accounts on behalf of the Democratic Party in the Alabama Senate race to manufacture false accusations that the Kremlin was interfering in that election.

Fabricated Russian troll accounts. On behalf of the Democratic Party.

What do you think about that?

This would be the Democratic Party that is run by corporate warmongers bought and paid for by Wall St and the military industrial complex, who would rather Trump wins again than a progressive, anti-war campaigner like Tulsi wins as a Democrat.

It was a smear, and there'll be lots more like it coming..

 

[maxflinn]

This is the depths of deceit to which the regime-change media will go. From The Intercept piece:

What’s particularly unethical about the NBC report is that it tries to bolster the credentials of this group by touting it as “the company the Senate Intelligence Committee used to track Russian activities in the 2016 election,” while concealing from its audience the fraud that this firm’s CEO just got caught perpetrating on the public on behalf of the Democratic Party.

 

[DonQuixote99]

The so-called 'cyber security company' New Knowledge are totally discredited. They fabricated Russian troll accounts on behalf of the Democratic Party in the Alabama Senate race to manufacture false accusations that the Kremlin was interfering in that election.

Fabricated Russian troll accounts. On behalf of the Democratic Party.

What do you think about that?

This would be the Democratic Party that is run by corporate warmongers bought and paid for by Wall St and the military industrial complex, who would rather Trump wins again than a progressive, anti-war campaigner like Tulsi wins as a Democrat.

It was a smear, and there'll be lots more like it coming..

Read the NY Times piece you cited previously on "New Knowledge." You too are wont to leave out details that might 'clutter up' your sweeping message. The Times says they engaged in a limited 'dirty online tricks' test in the Ray Jone/Roy Moore senate contest. Times says the testing was designed NOT to actually influence the election, and it appears it didn't. This is reprehensible, but does not make them "totally discredited" in my opinion.

You make it sound like they fabricated every 'Russian troll account' that ever existed.

 

[vuk]

don.

aside from ethics, the big problem here is one of scientific validity. when a company like this claims to find russian accounts or goes further to tie them to government or secret service, how do we verify this? on top of it, they are in the business of presenting services to help defend against the threat they are simultaneously informing potential clients of. finally, as nate silver has pointed out, when one looks at the total volume of what happens on social media, it is difficult to make a statistical case for any sort of significant effect. i would add to that the difficulty of making a connection between merely seeing something on facebook or twitter and having it change your mind or behavour.

i am not contesting that russian intelligence, among others, is playing around with this stuff but i see very little threat right now. what is becoming pretty clear though is how exaggerations are being used by politicians in much the same way terrorism is to advance particular agendas that have nothing to do with the safety of citizens. given that this is part of an espionage game that the USA dominates, the moral outrage expressed by some of the news celebrities is simply absurd and one wonders what they are really thinking.

 

[maxflinn]

Read the NY Times piece you cited previously on "New Knowledge." You too are wont to leave out details that might 'clutter up' your sweeping message. The Times says they engaged in a limited 'dirty online tricks' test in the Ray Jone/Roy Moore senate contest. Times says the testing was designed NOT to actually influence the election, and it appears it didn't. This is reprehensible, but does not make them "totally discredited" in my opinion.

You make it sound like they fabricated every 'Russian troll account' that ever existed.

A 'test' that was designed to not influence the election, but might have influenced the election? Sounds like dirty business to me.

I think this anti-Russian group tried to smear Tulsi, and were happily helped by the regime-change media channel: NBC.

How's that whole Trump/Russia collusion thing going, by the way? Are you still a believer?

 

[maxflinn]

Max, I'm curious why you think Gabbard is the best choice from Sanders and Warren (and any other progressive candidates I might have missed).

She is the most anti-war, Drood, while still advocating similar progressive policies to Bernie, so I slightly prefer her, though I'd be very happy if Bernie got the nomination. In fact I'm guessing that if they're close in the primaries towards the end, but Bernie looks like prevailing, they will team up, with Tulsi running with Bernie as his VP in the GE.

Having said all of that, I'm under no illusions that either or both combined can make huge positive changes. The system is not designed for them and the establishment and its media wing will resist to the death.

Some kind of revolution might be the only way, IMO.

 

[DonQuixote99]

How's that whole Trump/Russia collusion thing going, by the way? Are you still a believer?

If there was no explicit collusion with the top of the campaign here, it was only because those actually involved were smart enough to avoid it. Trump and Jr. certainly weren't. But I think there was collusion at a level, I just don't know for sure that Trump was or wasn't shielded from direct involvement.

 

[maxflinn]

If there was no explicit collusion with the top of the campaign here, it was only because those actually involved were smart enough to avoid it. Trump and Jr. certainly weren't. But I think there was collusion at a level, I just don't know for sure that Trump was or wasn't shielded from direct involvement.

Hopefully there has been enough non-Russian collusion-related stuff discovered to put Trump behind bars when his rein as president ends.

But in terms of Trump/Russia collusion, it seems likely they've got nothing. Which I always thought would be the case.

 

[DonQuixote99]

Hopefully there has been enough non-Russian collusion-related stuff discovered to put Trump behind bars when his rein as president ends.

But in terms of Trump/Russia collusion, it seems likely they've got nothing. Which I always thought would be the case.

Just as an observation, I notice that you are totally willing to believe that all the 'mainstream media,' and sinister neocon sorts of forces, collude like crazy. Yet you are an arch-skeptic regarding the notion that any coordination or sharing of any sort happened with regard to Russian overt and/or covert media and the Trump campaign. Do standards of evidence by any chance differ?