Are Elizabeth Warren, Nina Turner, and Tulsi Gabbard Controlled Opposition? And What about Bernie Sanders and Justice Democrats?
2. As far as I know (and I've searched a lot), Warren hasn't addressed the evidence that suggests voting machines were manipulated in favor of Clinton in the 2016 Democratic primary. That would mean Warren is effectively not only protecting the establishment but also encouraging it to rig future elections. Of course, this is assuming she knows about the evidence, which, as a supposedly anti-establishment politician, she probably should.
3. Warren ignored the protests against the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline for over half a year.
4. She, like Sanders, voted for Donald Trump's Secretary of Defense nominee, James "Mad Dog" Mattis. Plus, she didn't even put up a fight, to say the least:
Meanwhile, U.S. defense contractors are salivating over the money they'd make if NATO countries drastically increased their military spending to be able to go to war with Russia. Not to mention, the situation with Russia in Syria is already tense.
6. While Warren "condemned" Trump's missile strike on the Syrian air base following the apparent sarin gas attack in Syria in April 2017, she didn't challenge the illogical claim on which the establishment depended to "justify" the strike.
Basically, I think if she were serious about preventing war with Syria and Russia, she would fight the establishment's war propaganda instead of spreading it herself.
8. In an interview with TYT, when asked why she didn't endorse Sanders in the primary, instead of actually answering the question, she said, for example, that the primary "was a good thing," and that the race between Sanders and Clinton made her "proud to be a Democrat."
1. She used to campaign for Clinton.
3. Like Warren, Turner apparently hasn't addressed the evidence that suggests voting machines were manipulated in favor of Clinton in the primary, even though, unlike Warren, she endorsed Sanders.
4. Turner hasn't exposed the claim that Russia interfered with the election for the dangerous nonsense it is:
5. Turner is a founding advisor of the dark money group MPACT.
6. As far as I know, she hasn't addressed the claim that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad was behind the apparent sarin gas attack in Syria in April 2017.
Not claiming Assad was behind it is obviously better than claiming he was. But, in the end, not challenging the claim helps the establishment as well.
7. Turner was a speaker at the People's Summit, which reeked of the establishment.
For more on Turner, as well as Our Revolution:
1. She used to be a vice-chair of the DNC. And she only resigned to be able to support Sanders's campaign, so you'd assume she was serious about making sure he wins the election. The question, then, is this: why didn't Gabbard address all of the evidence suggesting election fraud occurred in the primary?
2. About a week after Clinton became the Democratic nominee, Gabbard said that she will vote for her.
3. While I couldn't find an instance where Gabbard claimed that Russia interfered with the election, I also couldn't find one where she explained why the claim is unfounded.
There are these two contradicting Tweets though:
On July 25, 2017, Gabbard voted in favor of the bill that would impose sanctions on Russia for "interfering" with the election. Yes, the bill is also about Iran and North Korea, but Gabbard didn't state that she doesn't agree with the part about Russia.
4. She's not really anti-war. For example, here's an excerpt from this article about her non-progressive record:
'Responding to questions from Honolulu Civil Beat in 2012, Gabbard said that “the best way to defeat the terrorists is through strategically placed, small quick-strike special forces and drones - the strategy that took out Osama Bin Laden.” She told Fox in 2014 that she would direct “the great military that we have” to conduct “unconventional strategic precise operations to take out these terrorists wherever they are.” The same year, she told Civil Beat that military strategy must “put the safety of Americans above all else” and “utilize our highly skilled special operations forces, work with and support trusted foreign partners to seek and destroy this threat.”
“In short, when it comes to the war against terrorists, I’m a hawk,” she told the Hawaii Tribune-Herald last year. “When it comes to counterproductive wars of regime change, I’m a dove.”'
5. While Gabbard recently stated that she will no longer accept money from PACs/lobbyists, she did accept it for years...
6. I couldn't find a single instance where she addressed the fact that the establishment has both the motive and the means to manipulate electronic voting machines.
As of June 24, 2017, not a single one of Gabbard's Tweets or Facebook posts addresses this issue (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6), and the same goes for Warren (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) and Sanders (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) (there's a Tweet in which Turner simply asks for new voting machines and regular inspections).
Gabbard's proposed "Securing America's Elections Act" would not only fail to prevent the manipulation of electronic voting machines but also provide a false sense of security:
Debbie Lusignan's video was deleted (as was her channel), so here's the most relevant article she reads out from in the video:
Gabbard is no longer listed as a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.
8. Even though (a) George W. Bush is beyond untrustworthy, (b) the official 9/11 story is full of plot holes, and (c) the chair and vice-chair of the 9/11 Commission literally admitted that they "were set up to fail," Gabbard, Warren, Turner, and Sanders have not demanded a real investigation into what happened on the day that would shape U.S. foreign policy for years to come.
To be clear, I'm aware that, in April 2017, Sanders said, "I think it's important to have a full investigation and an understanding of the role, the possible role, of the Saudi government in 9/11." But, needless to say, I think that statement is way too little, way too late.
Likewise, around four months earlier, Gabbard co-sponsored a bill that "condemns boycott and divestment campaigns and sanctions that target Israel."
6. In June 2017, Sanders tweeted this:
7. In May 2016, Sanders endorsed Tim Canova, who ran for Congress and supposedly lost against former DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who presumably played a major role in rigging the primaries against Sanders. But then, in June 2017, when asked if he's going to support Canova's second Democratic primary bid against Wasserman Schultz, Sanders replied:
"I have no idea about Tim Canova, I honestly don't."
"I know nothing about Tim Canova."
I published that article over a month ago - Justice Democrats still hasn't explained away all of the things that point out Ro Khanna isn't actually a progressive, and the PAC's platform, website, Facebook page, and Twitter account (1, 2) still haven't addressed the dangers of electronic voting.
Basically, what she said:
Since Debbie Lusignan's video is no longer available, I'm now quoting her instead:
'These are the new faces of the sheepherders. That is what they are. These roles have been played for decades within the Democratic Party. They use progressives. They highlight in election years - Dennis Kucinich, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and many others - they highlight them. And they put their message out, because the Democratic Party would not be able to sustain establishment power without these people playing this role. Because, if we did not have the sheepherders, who are integral - they are core to how the Democratic establishment keeps power - people wouldn't stay. Why do you think it was Bernie Sanders who was hired by the Democratic Party establishment and had a special position created for him, and why the corporate media, which blacked him out during the campaign, now features him? Do you think the corporate media is featuring him 24/7 because he's challenging establishment power? And no, he's not getting one over on them, because there have never been any real, tangible concessions of power for these progressives to play this role. This is old. It is really, really old. And I've had a lot of people take offense because they feel like I'm attacking them. I'm not attacking you. I am pointing out something that has been done for decades that is part of how the establishment manipulates you. And they do it through the politicians that you trust, and this is what makes it so hard. Because people will not accept that Bernie Sanders is an establishment politician. They think that Bernie Sanders is an "outside politician," even when every action has been to throw the power that he actually has back to establishment power: propping up Tom Perez, propping up Chuck Schumer, propping up Hillary Clinton, and propping up in these Democrats the very thing that they say that they oppose with the Republicans.'
"[T]his is so crucial, because this is how they manage people. This is how they manage us. You're not going to take the Democratic Party back from within basically saying that you're mad about their policies while shielding their corruption and their fraud and propping up the center politicians who hold the true power within the party. You would have to tear down the corruption and you would have to expose the fraud. Instead, Bernie Sanders lies his ass off to blame Russia for what the Democratic Party, the DNC, and Hillary Clinton operatives did. He's shielding the establishment. And people do not get this."
Also, in the alleged words of Vladimir Lenin:
"The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves."
Regarding Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ajamu Baraka, and Tim Canova, who also, for example, still supports Sanders:
And regarding Jill Stein:
Also, since Gabriel Simon's video has been deleted (along with his channel), here are a couple of quotes from it, with sources added:
"Instead of talking about the internal fraud that happened in 2016, Ocasio-Cortez is propagating the Russia narrative."
"She said she would support any of the Democrats running in 2020, including Hillary."
"[Tim Canova] immediately lost my support when he said he was not for Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions - BDS."
'Watch out for the Canova types. The "independents," the quote-unquote independents. Because, the further we push the establishment into a corner, the more they have to adapt - to look more progressive - to fool us. The more desperate they become, the more they're gonna look like us.'
"Nothing is more dangerous than a cancer pretending to be the cure."
'As we have heard before, all the same clichés will be levied at us from the right and the left this time: "Purity tests," "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good," "Grow up and leave the adult decisions to us." We will hear those for the next few months, and, in fact, you can read all of them in Ajamu Baraka's Facebook statement below.' - Simon reading out from an article from Scott Creighton's deleted WordPress website americaneveryman.com