If it pissed off the libs then ofc

Nah, you are just stereotyping about my views. I don't agree with the typical progressive analysis of police shootings and racism.

However, it's true enough that people's differing priors about the prevalence and nature of racism fuel disagreement about the causes of police violence in specific cases, and also why arguing from specific cases so often just devolves into name-calling and shouting.

Fair enough. I don't mean you specifically, as I don't even really see you as a liberal. But I think there is some truth that generally the same people who would see no reason to assume Twitter was censoring #Unity2020 for political reasons would also view it as revealed truth that any anecdote of a police encounter with a black person that ended in a poor outcome was fueled by racism (at least as long at the media had already framed it as such and pulled the "indignant outrage" string).

Yes, this is an excellent callback to the start of the George Floyd callbacks, when people who saw the video of him being killed on social media withheld their anger, or any emotion, until the LameStream Media told them to feel a certain way about it. Kelhus with his finger on the pulse of the country as always!

Aside from the delusion of thinking his opinion has a lot of weight(@~8k followers/state ) on the national level/kingmake a President after a couple Rogan appearances etc lol there's also already a unity partyhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unity_Party_of_America est. 2004.

Best case scenario here is dude's got a couple screws loose even if there is some genuine motivation behind it. An obv alternative is it's driven by an agenda other than the one described Again--see the only people really promoting it Tucker/RT some other rightwing outlets and Rogan.

And does anyone other than--apparently--Bret actually believe Tulsi was picked by the left(vs say some of Rogan's audience trolling) and Crenshaw is a bipartisan pick(that's completely dishonest)? Are they actually on board with this--I find that a little tough to believe considering some parts of it--just because they believe they get to hand the Presidency directly to their vp counts for nothing lol? Everything about this whole thing is shady as **** the more you look into it. Regardless neither 1 of those 2 have a legitimate shot in hell this year--which brings it back around to why does this really exist??

https://ballotpedia.org/Upcoming_fil...ndidates,_2020

My guess is he ran afoul of some of their policies wrt political content.

Okay, but I am a liberal. Also, please be clearer if you are talking to someone else or some other group rather than to me.

Yes? I am not surprised that people who believe racism is a major cause of police shootings are also not friendly to the ideological project of the IDW. This says nothing about the veracity of their viewpoint.

Here is my guess. Bret Weinstein doesn't want to allege conservative bias, because he doesn't want to admit that even though he is a liberal he is aligned with conservative media, so instead he claims this is bias against him for proposing a normie stereotypical centrist dumb idea ("can't we all just be friends?"). Most likely this banning was just noise or due to Weinstein breaking the rules, but if it is more specific, I would presume that it is due to someone or some algorithm thinking he is a conservative or not liking the IDW, and not because of a fear of a unity ticket. Just saying something is a political idea doesn't provide sufficient reason to think anyone cares enough to censor it.

Saying Crenshaw Tulsi is just trolling. One is a hyperpartisan far right republican the other is republican's favorite democrat who fights against Hillary more than Trump. Why not just say AOC and Mitt? Totally bipartisan and not a troll job. #seriousideas

It was some sort of vote. I remember Weinstein endorsed Andrew Yang on the D side and some general I never even heard of on the R side. Not sure how much better Yang is than Tulsi to the average progressive.

There is a lot of overlap between the people who listen to Rogan and him; and Tulsi is a Rogan favorite, so that probably is why that happened that way.

I have listened to Tulsi on Rogan and other than her being very against Democrat (and Republican) motivated warmongering I am not really sure her reputation as a R in D clothing is anything more than the media and D Party gaslighting her and the progressive sheeple falling for it. (Cue Trolly mentioning her being against gay marriage 20 years ago)

Just to check my sanity, I googled Tulsi's positions on various issues and it is basically straight regurgitating D talking points, other than criticizing military adventurism the D Party supports, exactly as I remembered it was.

The way the leftist media and D Party portrays her really is straight gaslighting.

Her is a list from a PBS interview:

Climate change: Mandate an end to the use of fossil fuels for electricity by 2050. Ban fracking.

Education: Tuition-free community college for all and tuition-free public university for most families.

Guns: Ban assault weapons and require universal background checks.

Social Issues: Protect abortion rights. Ban discrimination based on sexual preference, identity.

Social Issues: Protect abortion rights. Ban discrimination based on sexual preference, identity.

Military intervention: Withdraw from Afghanistan and Syria.

Saudi Arabia: End U.S. support for Saudi-led conflict in Yemen.

--This is every Republican's favorite Democrat? Really?

Huh, I wonder if Twitter has a policy on trademark infringement? Nah, probably nothing.

here's my guess--although cruising thru their rules brings up some other possibilities.

https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-an...tegrity-policy

Right at the top--against the rules to promote suppressing participation.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020...cratic-primary

I would honestly think you were joking if you didn't take morons like Weinstein seriously. Did you know the physics community and Ed Witten is CENSORING his brother's super awesome theory of everything just because it challenges the dominance of string theory? Never mind it doesn't exist and even if it did it's errors would be apparent to anybody who could get through Weinberg's Quantum Theory of Fields Vol 1.

She voted "present" on Trump's impeachment, has been muted in her criticism of Trump and forgiving of his style of rhetoric, and that is probably enough. You are a decade over-due if you think a list of policies matter. Remember that the RNC did not even present a platform in its 2020 convention, stating that it was about supporting Trump.

We definitely are living in strange partisan times (and giving the leftist MSM way too much control of the narrative IMO) when someone who advocates for UBI, green energy, single payer medicare, strengthening abortion rights, and an end to foreign military adventurism is just hand waived off as a Republican because the media says they aren't harsh enough on the President of the United States.

I actually wonder if the MSM and Democrat Party machine spends so much time gaslighting Gabbard because they don't actually want real progressive reform, and are afraid she could actually bring it about because she isn't as divisive and antagonistic towards the other side.

As long as AOC is the face of green energy and singe payer healthcare, Republicans voters will fight it tooth and nail out of principle because of her divisive rhetoric. If someone who is on speaking terms with the right starts campaigning for green energy or single payer then that is a much bigger progressive threat.

By all available evidence, she is a capable politician more than able to define and present her political platform when she wants to. There is no need to present her as a victim of circumstance.

Yes. But then VanityFair writes an article saying your actually platform and voting record as a member of Congress dont matter. What really matters is that you didn't say enough mean things about Trump. And all the blue pilled sheeple with just lap it all up.

Then again, maybe I am giving the media too much credit, and the real problem is that most American progressives are actually fake, and they aren't interested in reform, and they realize that extreme partisan siloing is an effective method to keep the status quo.

Whenever I see the term "sheeple" used, I always thinks it reflects more poorly on the person using it than the people he / she refers to. It's a lazy term, almost invariably used for the shallowest of reflections.

But generally yes, you typically lose elections or candidacies if your message is at odds with the vast majority of the people eligible to vote. That's the price of democracy.

Les be honest. We aren't really a democracy. If we were there is on world where 2 increasingly senile Septuagenarians would be running for Presidency come November.

Old people are most likely to vote, are politically reliable and in the reality of US politics are probably the ones who can donate the most. I don't think the mystery of candidates being old is harder than that, they reflect the unbalanced composition of the politically active demographic.

I think it's strange that so many people believe we just vote for ideas rather than people in elections. Being a member of a party in Congress is not really about what percentage of the party platform you agree with, but more will you coordinate tactics and strategy within that party leadership structure. This includes coordinating around a common message during the campaign season. With thousands of politicians all running at the same time in the same party, this coordination by politicians is necessary to signal to voters and the media what your party stands for. Since voters usually identify more with the party than the specific person running, preserving that signal is important to the electoral success of the power bloc represented by that party.

If a member of Congress isn't willing to coordinate in this way, then even if they agree ideologically with their listed party, they function more as an independent Democrat (or Republican). The media correctly portrays such politicians as not speaking for the party as a whole in their statements, but rather for themselves alone or some more limited faction. That's my understanding of who Tulsi Gabbard is, an independent Democrat, but not a Republican.

This lack of message coordination has benefits - many voters are skeptical of party leadership and like the authenticity that comes from being able to more freely speak your mind. But it also can have costs, such as when other powerful and influential party leaders tell voters that you can't be trusted and work against party interests or don't let you speak at party events. Running against the actual party nominee for President would only confirm to most voters that these other party leaders are correct as you refuse to abide by the nominee choice of the members of the party.

Yes there is? Philosophers have argued against democracy on the exact grounds that the mass public would elect people unfit for office ever since it was invented. Your model of democracy is too narrow if you think this isn't possible. People make bad decisions en masse all the time.

I think these are all good points, some of which I haven't thought of before.

But I think there is a lot of validity to the point that liberal MSM and Democratic machine has seemed to successfully gaslight the the left into believing Gabbard is a Russian asset Republican. When I can listen to her talk for 10 minutes on Rogan and spend 20 seconds looking at her voting record as a Congress woman realize that entire narrative is complete fake garbage.

Ironically, I would guess part of the allure that Fox News crowd has for her is the fact the leftist MSM is so negative towards her, and they probably don't even realize her policy ideas and voting record are so progressive.

I don't understand how something that's politically charged one way or the other can be removed from Twitter. Is there bad language? Were there threats of violence?

Just like when Howard Stern was on public radio. If you didn't like his show, then you shouldn't listen to it. You don't have to follow Bret Weinstein.

The problem here is that you are wrong on the causation. Democrats who don't like Gabbard aren't sheeple following the media's dictates, but rather are acting like typical partisans when they criticize and exaggerate the badness of politicians that act independently of party leadership. In general, partisans are very opposed to perceived disloyalty. For example, Jeff Flake wasn't forced out of office because of the media or Senate leadership, but because too many Republican voters regarded his unwillingness to support President Trump as disqualifying. In these cases it is more typically the media following voter concerns than vice versa.

So when Vanity Fair writes negative articles about Gabbard, your first instinct should be to read it as red meat for Democratic partisans, not a carefully crafted narrative manipulating people into supporting less winsome proponents of progressive policies.