Comments by "" (@thehumanity0) on "Tulsi Gabbard Blocked Ana Kasparian from Interviewing Her" video.

I largely agree with this. I saw all the aggressive comments that Ana was getting and thought "Oh man, she must've said something really dumb", but then I watched the video she did and it was literally nearly all the same criticisms that I've seen from other outlets like Secular Talk, Humanist Report, Rational National, and none of those outlets received ANY blowback from their criticisms. From everything I saw, nothing she said could be labeled a "smear".
8
There is a colossal difference between criticisms from the real Left and "attacks" from the media, something you seem to be conflating with one another. When people bring up Tulsi's past comments on torture, how she refuses to support the Green New Deal, and is weak when it comes to healthcare and claiming that private insurers should stay in our system, THESE are legitimate progressive criticisms that define why she's not as good as some other progressive candidates. This is why we have primaries. People have made some of the same criticisms against Elizabeth Warren, yet I doubt you would defend her on her positions. When you're talking about the actual bad-faith "attacks" from the mainstream media, these are nowhere near in the same ballpark as what I just outlined. You literally had Stephen Colbert attacking her over Syria and claiming "If we pull out of these wars, China and Russia will fill the vacuum we create" (I have endlessly defended Tulsi from these MSM attacks). You're insulting people's intelligence when you conflate a bad-faith smear like that with a legitimate concern that's coming from a place of policy and substance from a progressive perspective. I have seen Kyle Kulinski, Mike Figueredo and David Doel all make nearly the same criticisms against Gabbard as Ana and David Pakman. It is dishonest to call these criticisms "attacks" or "smears" just because they raise concerns about a candidate that you personally like.
7
@johnmacleod9507 I have seen Bernie get criticized a ton by some progressives. Some issues, Bernie gets overly criticized on because the media constantly pushes focus towards those issues. Reparations, for instance, I have seen both mainstream and progressive media unfairly scrutinize his position far MORE than any other candidate running. Some progressives have talked about how Bernie is weak on the issue, all the while nearly all the other candidates don't even get talked about and essentially get a pass when they have the same or worse stance that Bernie has. I have seen many people overly-focused and bashing Bernie just to make a case for other progressive candidates like Yang, Warren, and Tulsi. In addition, to many outlets claiming he's "weak on foreign policy" and they base this off of one or two actions from Bernie within a 40 year period of his entire political career. There is a Huge amount of bias against Bernie, it is factually inaccurate to claim otherwise.
7
@titusorelius9458 Go watch their first videos on Tulsi when she announced. Yes, they made a lot of the same criticisms, even the one you listed about Tulsi in a picture with others, except I'm pretty sure they were talking about Modi, whereas Ana did not even mention her ties to Modi.
2
@paulbattenbough1002 Medicare for All already allows for supplemental private insurance. Instead of opting out for the public option and centering healthcare around the private markets, it would instead have people opt-out if they wanted private care and focus healthcare around universal coverage. This is not a fucking complex issue, and you're completely misrepresenting Medicare for All, explaining how Tulsi wants something similar to the UK system when the UK system is nationalized healthcare and far more "radical" than even Medicare for All, a compromise to a totally nationalized system like the UK because Med 4 All subsidizes private doctors and hospitals instead of nationalizing care. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about on healthcare so why would I be surprised when you start making wild and low-brow accusations about "TYT attacking Jimmy Dore" and apparently having their reporting influenced by "corporate money". TYT literally produces the Jimmy Dore show genius, if they were out to get him and answered to corporate overlords, they would've already shut down his show and Aggressive Progressives, not to mention they wouldn't be pushing Bernie Sanders as the #1 2020 candidate. Also, you seem to be forgetting that Mueller's report gives substantial evidence for impeachment with 11 different cases of Obstruction of Justice and 2 different violations of the emolument's clause, so sticking to the narrative that it's all a "nothing burger" and people "lost credibility" for reporting on it doesn't really work anymore.
2
@Ryan Dulac The Green New Deal isn't an actual bill, it's an outline and proposal for drafting a set of bills to tackle what it's presenting. It doesn't require her to be married to every policy in the proposal. If she doesn't like having Medicare for All lumped into it, that's a fair criticism, but she supposedly supports Medicare for All and having a comprehensive plan for transitioning to renewable energy, so why WOULDN'T she support it? They're trying to present it on the floor of Congress so they can have a debate on drafting some of those certain policies, so not supporting it only helps the other side in dismissing the points it brings up.
1
@Ryan Dulac Are you asking why his name isn't on that list? That's an HR bill and Bernie is in the Senate, and that bill never had enough support to make it to the Senate, it never even had a vote in the House. Do you have a source that says Bernie flatly was unsupportive of the bill? Because unlike your weak 'gotcha' we have verbal confirmation that Tulsi does not support the Green New Deal, we have verbal confirmation that she supports a milquetoast version of Medicare for All that keeps private insurers in control of the market. But please, go on.
1
@theciakilledjfk5973 TYT is not a politician, they're not a public servant, they're a business. A company that participates in venture capitalism. Why do you feel the need to make the same hacky argument as Ben Shapiro (in every thread on this video)?
1