Exactly right. It seems CW and others need to be informed regarding what constitutes a "Russian asset" and that a person can be a "witting" as well as "unwitting" Russian asset. Then there's the glaringly obvious honking fact that HRC did not call out the "Russian asset" by name so it was quite accommodating of Tulsi Gabbard to raise her voice in answer of the affirmative.

HRC is correct for many reasons, of course, as we've discussed on this board months ago:

Would it be a requirement for a candidate to be "pro-Russian" in order to garner the support of the bots in order to push a narrative? I certainly wasn't trying to make sense about why the Russian bots would flood the zone to make Tulsi Gabbard the winner of a poll on right-wing propaganda media like Drudge, but they are.

GRU modus operandi is to divide and conquer and spread misinformation. Why would they choose Tulsi Gabbard as a means to that end? Let's now speculate. Perhaps it's because:

* Gabbard was endorsed by David Duke and the white supremacists and their ilk.

* The far lefties refer to her as being an "Assad shill" and therefore a "Putin puppet."

* She took an unannounced trip to meet with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in 2017 and afterward said she was "skeptical" that Assad would use chemical weapons against his own people and referred to the accusations as just another round of "pointing fingers."

* She took a Trump Tower meeting brokered by Steve Bannon who praised Gabbard for embracing the term "radical Islamic terrorism."

* RT loves her.

* Gabbard has said that she'd drop all charges against Edward Snowden and Julian Assange. Julian Assange and WikiLeaks are a cutout for the Russian hacking of our democracy.

So, yes, the Russian bots are promoting Tulsi Gabbard. Just FYI. :)

http://www.chrisweigant.com/2019/06/27/the-first-democratic-debate-round-1/#comment-138572

First off, it's "McRaven"... not "McCraven." He makes a lot of good points in that op-ed, doesn't he? I like this one:

The America that they believed in was under attack, not from without, but from within. ~ William H. McRaven

Nice of the generals to begin catching on. Has a nice ring to it:

Donald Trump: A guy who believes that accumulation of wealth is the true sign of a man's worth, who easily takes both sides of any issue for political expediency while his true loyalty lies with himself, a confident con no matter which side he's taking, and the biggest threat to our country coming not from without, but from within, a guy who fancies himself a true patriot but who'd turn coat on America and her people in order to satisfy his insatiable greed and lust for power and title... a modern-day Benedict Arnold. ~ Kick, circa May 2016

http://www.chrisweigant.com/2016/05/13/ftp391/#comment-75291

Wrong again did you not read the WAPO article? It clearly states that 90+ per cent of Fox viewers are Trumpistas

Actually, that's not quite what it said but, even if it did, is that reason to keep Democrats and their messages, arguments, etc. off of Fox?

worse, even accidental exposure to that sort of propaganda can change voter behavior negatively. liz, it's not about giving voters credit or not giving them credit. propaganda works on groups of people no matter who they are, how intelligent they are, or how well inoculated they think they are from its effects. worse still, CNN seems to have followed MSNBC into the abyss of EMULATING fox - replacing fact with propaganda.

Not all Fox viewers are for Trump, no matter what.

But, even if people do expose themselves to beliefs they disagree with, that won’t necessarily make things better. More exposure to the other side can sometimes backfire and cause people to become more entrenched in their own beliefs. One study paid Twitter users to follow accounts that would retweet tweets from their political opponents—liberals would see conservative tweets, and conservatives would see liberal tweets. It didn’t cause people to open their minds to the other side. Instead, liberals became more liberal, and conservatives became more conservative.

From one of many studies showing that confronting people with facts doesn't change minds. Doing that is a start but must be followed up with other steps that wont happen on FOX.

Everything about FOX is built to keep it's viewers fooled and propagandized. Appearing on FOX only serves to validate it, thereby allowing its elder-abused, brainwashed fans to say to themselves: "gee, Joe Biden went on FOX and said a bunch of stuff Sean Hannity says is a lie! Since Biden was willing to appear here it's wrong to say FOX is biased! Hannity says what Carlson says which is what they said on FOX and Friends. Chris Wallace and Joe Biden are wrong or lying!"

FOX IS NOT A NEWS CHANNEL it is a propaganda factory. It hurts Dems collectively when individual Dems appear there and it doesn't matter how cogent their arguments.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/words-matter/201810/why-people-ignore-facts

If they don't, then the message of the article Russ linked to above will only get worse for Democrats.

I just read that WaPo piece you linked to.

All of which just strengthens my argument that Democrats - at least, UP-WING Democrats - should make their voices heard and push back on Trump's most egregious lies, particularly as they relate to the 2020 presidential campaign.

Of course, this will take plenty of preparation on the part of the Democrats who enter into Fox territory.

But, I have no doubt that there are many Democrats, including many of those running now and Democrats in congressional leadership positions, who are quite capable of getting out an enlightened message to counter the Trump line.

You see how descriptive this can be for candidates? It takes their party right out of the analysis of who a candidate is and how they would lead.

Well, the devolutionary nature of American political and media culture practically ensures this sad state of affairs.

Something different is in order and long overdue.
I think a description of "up-wing" is also in order.

Again. :)

It's a term used by one of my favourite political analysts, William Bradley, and was derived from an idea that former Senator Gary Hart showed him to characterize political figures using a past-future spectrum instead of the usual right-wing/left-wing classification.

To paraphrase Bradley, this past-future spectrum naturally runs from the up end to the down end of the spectrum, with the 'up' futurist end characterized by new technology, creative utilizations of existing technology, and new structural forms to pursue enduring values and new visions.

The up-wing leader places a special emphasis on big think/think big future-oriented and enlightened policies in an effort to position a society on the global cutting edge, even in the midst of great challenges and crises that would paralyze a down-wing political leader.

Additionally, to quote Bradley, "big thinking, big ideas need not be about big items per se. In fact, some of the biggest thinking is about small things, or more accurately, how to bring smaller things into play to solve problems that big things might make worse."

This is a far superior method of characterizing political figures today than the outdated and tired left-wing/right wing labels because it identifies the candidate most capable of outlining a coherent vision for the future and of possessing the courage to carry it out.

The staff recommendations from Zuckerberg are the first evidence of the Facebook CEO actively assisting a presidential campaign. A number of other high-ranking Facebook executives, including David Marcus, the executive leading Facebook’s cryptocurrency efforts, Naomi Gleit, one of Facebook’s longest-tenured executives, and Chris Cox, former chief product officer who is close friends with Zuckerberg, have donated to Buttigieg.

Spot on! But I think the most obvious problem with picking Doral — well, the second most obvious problem, the most obvious is that it is against the law —is that the conference is held in June. Doral’s slowest months are June and August for a very good reason...it is hotter than hell during those months and the weather doesn’t like to play nice!

Why anyone would think that holding a conference in a location where just physically attending will make the participants feel miserable could be conducive to creating a good work environment for these world leaders to work in is beyond me!

Trump’s team will have to scramble to find a new location, because you know they haven’t been looking anywhere else until now! They didn’t bother to conduct the proper investigation into the property they chose, so what are the chances that they did for any of the other possible locations?

Tell me you're just kidding about the t-shirts!

I really wish that I could, but sadly I cannot! It truly is sad that “Liberal” and “Conservative” now carry the same vitriol that used to only come from certain racial slurs and curse words!

There is a great article in today’s WAPO on how powerful FoxNews is at keeping Trump’s base behind him.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/10/21/want-trump-removed-new-data-shows-that-fox-news-is-huge-obstacle/#comments-wrapper

Don't worry - she's not running.

For one, it is directly under the flight path for air traffic from Miami International Airport.

For another, it is inland and surrounded by corporate high rises. Other G7 locations have used the sea as a security buffer on at least one side.

The pool has been so poorly maintained that it is dirty and not even filled to capacity with water.

Several of the bungalows not only have bed bedbugs but are also musty and moldy.

At least two helipads would have to be built on the golf course for transporting diplomats for security purposes and then removed afterwards, involving major construction and then renovation of the facilities to the tune of millions of dollars at tax payer expense.

Thank god they finally backed down and will now look for another site.

Have Democrats done nothing to reverse those perceptions?

Of course they have tried, but Republicans are better at spinning lies than Democrats are at getting their intended message out. Republicans have long supported the military-insustrial complex more than they have those that serve in our military, but they act as if the there is no separating the two when discussing the military’s budget.
Democrats have been more vocal about our over spending on the military budget, and Republicans have been better at spinning that to seem like Democrats are not wanting to support our troops.

Trump, however, may do more to ruin the GOP’s relationship with our military service members than anyone could have imagined if they don’t remove him before he completely hands our government over to the foreign powers pulling his purse strings. That Trump sells t-shirts at his rallies that say “I’d rather be a Russian than a Democrat” sounds silly until you realize Trump is working for Putin.

On October 22, Frontline will look at the immigration debate and how President Trump's version of "The Snake" which he often recites at his rallies has defined that debate:

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/watch-donald-trump-and-the-snake/?utm_source=Iterable&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ICYMI&utm_content=191018

I mean, I know Senator Biden has done so much to support the military over his many decades in service to the country.

But, his is the only one I know of who ends every single speech he makes with, "And, may God protect our troops."

I think it goes back to the Vietnam era... some anti-war protesters took it too far and couldn’t separate their opposing the war from blaming those forced to fight it for causing the war. Sadly, Republicans just ran with it and made it so anyone who opposed war was guilty of opposing the military.

The US military, it seems, have an affinity for Republicans.

I've never understood their dislike of Democrats, during the latter part of my lifetime, at least ...

https://www.propublica.org/article/the-pro-trump-super-pac-at-the-center-of-the-ukraine-scandal-has-faced-multiple-campaign-finance-complaints

The first time this happened, Gen. Mattis and the person leading the multinational coalition on defeating ISIS resigned in protest of Trump’s sudden change in our ME strategy.

Now, Trump pulled us out of Syria immediately after getting off the phone with Erdogan, inviting the ethnic cleansing of the Kurdish people that we had once called our close allies!

Michael can claim that Trump was preventing us from being drawn into a war all he wants...Trump had us running away from defending our allies like cowards with our tails between our legs! We had to call in air strikes on our own bases to prevent them from being captured by foreign forces — Trump let Erdogan call the shots and tell him what he would order our forces to do. I have said before that Trump is clearly compromised, and this is further proof of that fact!

But Hillary as President just isn't the cards. As much as I admire the woman it's time to move on, Madame Secretary.

Agreed. And respectfully so: As qualified as she is and considering her opponent, the fact that she in not President is a calamity of historic proportions.

Nevertheless, I believe that the majority of Democrats don't want to hear from Hillary anymore. What else explains the flack that she's getting. Jesus, like we don't have a Trump to remind us of her failures.

I think that the unspoken Democratic sentiment is for Hillary to just go away.

Maybe among Hillary-hating Dems. Lots of us enjoy hearing from her and think her warnings should be heeded.

* Paula [1] = I couldn't have said it better.

* And I nominate 'dream hampton' (yes, it seems she uses lower-case only) for honorable mention of MIDOTW:
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/dream-hampton-fortune-kirstjen-nielsen_n_5da9cd1fe4b0e71d65b81d1d

Apologies to nypoet22 and Michale. Hey guys, I didn't invent the term NYDB but it's what Trump campaigned as (and is governing as) so it is what it is.

You see, in 2008 she lost to a black man. Then in 2016 she lost to a New York Douchebag. Yes, there were headwinds aplenty in 2016 -- the DNC jamming her down our throats, the Rooskies, Comey, misogeny and her own wooden campaign -- but look who she lost to!

I think that the unspoken Democratic sentiment is for Hillary to just go away.

As political punditry goes, her guess has a history which the press has completely overlooked. Par for the course.

Exactly.

[12] Yep.

Well said, Chris and I, for one around here, agree.

Some of the media was on CW's side on this, which shows just how fast the media can turn on you, even when you have the facts on your side. As political punditry goes, her guess has a history which the press has completely overlooked. Par for the course.

Hillary has every right to be pissed about the 2016 election and how Russia interfered to keep her out of the White House. That she has remained out of the spot light as much as she has is a testament to her restraint. I think Hillary is just making sure the public keeps its eyes open to the ways that Russia will interfere in our upcoming election.

Precisely!

It is becoming clear that Trump failed to follow the normal selection process for picking private vendors for government funded events. The biggest tell might be that the mayor of Doral, Florida first learned that the resort was really being considered to host the conference was when the White House announced it would host it. That means the city was never contacted by the Secret Service and has not worked with our government to see what security demands will be placed on the city.

On a sad note, the resort has a bad history of bed bug infestations. Lawyers for the resort recently settled the most recent lawsuit brought by one of the bed bug bitten.

Preach it!

In December 2018, two reports commissioned by the US Senate found that the Russian government's attempts to interfere in the 2016 election had included boosting Stein's candidacy through social media posts. This disinformation effort targeted African-American voters in particular. Stein has often taken positions that closely mirrored Russian positions.

Hillary has every right to be pissed about the 2016 election and how Russia interfered to keep her out of the White House. That she has remained out of the spot light as much as she has is a testament to her restraint. I think Hillary is just making sure the public keeps its eyes open to the ways that Russia will interfere in our upcoming election.

Double you, tea, eff factorial factorial buttonhook factorial factorial buttonhook, Hillary,

aka

WTF!?!!?

As the saying goes, my ability to even is severely impaired.

Do they even understand the role of the Supreme Court and how it functions?

For those of us who are not Americans but who have long been firm believers in the promise of America, the actions of the Trump administration have been deflating. The betrayal of the Kurds is especially shameful.

I think if the promise of America is to survive, the next POTUS will have to work extremely hard to regain the trust of the free world and beyond, not to mention many Americans, let alone be considered the global leader.

Bullshit.

Hillary Clinton obviously needs to stop spreading such inflammatory conspiracies, because by doing so she is just doing Trump's work for him. Does she really think Tulsi Gabbard or Jill Stein are really going to be determining factors in the 2020 race? Does she really believe that either of them is "a Russian asset"?

She does and so do others. "Asset" means witting or unwitting. Gabbard, much like Blotus, always seems to be saying things that are Putin-positive and Dem-negative. Whether she does it deliberately or because she is a moron - that's what she does. A host of rightwing pundits LOVE Gabbard - that's a tell. She spreads conspiracy theories and whines on FOX, which is rightwing propaganda central. And Jill Stein is a total tool - she runs for office for the dough, spent time in Russia and does nothing except spread anti-Dem crap.

But then, I seem to remember all sorts of people who thought the idea of Russian interference in our elections (long since PROVED and accepted by all but deplorable blotus fools) was just nonsensical.

HRC was SOS under a legit administration. If it was a contest between what she knows and what CW knows, I'll back HRC. The third party threat exists - especially since Bernie will lose and a chunk of his most idiotic supporters will refuse to vote for the Dem winner and will insist they were robbed. So the question will be which tool will do a spite-run and help the GOP? If some never-trumper runs on the right, that may siphon off Repubs, which is good. But anyone helping to siphon off Dems - Gabbard, Stein or anyone else, should be damned to hell.