Many on the right spent the last five years arguing -- correctly -- that the CIA and the rest of the intelligence community are pernicious liars, authoritarians and tyrants, but now -- what? -- should be unleashed to bring benevolent freedom and democracy to the Cuban people?
What's the difference between Hillary Clinton wanting to use the US military to bring regime change to Iraq, Syria and Libya -- claiming she just wants to help the people there -- and those now urging the US Govt intervene to change the regime in Cuba?
At least Marco Rubio never pretended to be anything other than a war-mongering neoconservative and interventionist, wanting to overthrow governments he doesn't like & use regime-change operations to "help." But many on the right purport to oppose that:
Gave interviews today to several right-wing outlets on why US regime-change intervention in Cuba is profoundly inconsistent with MAGA/America-First foreign policy principles.
Leftists who only talk to leftists and think that's noble or effective are self-indulgent idiots.
Also, there are influential MAGA voices arguing that regime-change intervention in Cuba is neocon/liberal-interventionism, not America First, and argue the same about US involvement in Israel's wars.
Refusing to see those splits and build bridges to them is immoral and dumb.
On the left: one of the smarter leftists on this platform, on Cuba.
On the right: one of the smarter and more consistent MAGA advocates, on Cuba.
If you don't see or value the opportunity to build on these commonalities, then it means you value posturing more than outcomes.
Obviously, people in different political factions and of different ideologies - including the two above - have significantly different views. If they didn't, they wouldn't be in different factions.
But they have many important commonalities on which much progress can be built.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The Biden administration is telling Facebook which posts it regards as "problematic" so that Facebook can remove them.
This is the union of corporate and state power -- one of the classic hallmarks of fascism -- that the people who spent 5 years babbling about fascism support.
If you don't find it deeply disturbing that the White House is "flagging" internet content that they deem "problematic" to their Facebook allies for removal, then you are definitionally an authoritarian. No other information is needed about you to know that.
There is no circumstance -- none -- in which it's acceptable for the White House or any other agency of the government to be providing lists to Facebook of "problematic" content it wants removed, yet's that exactly what Psaki says they're doing:
The Speaker, already one of the richest members in Congress, has become far richer through investment maneuvers in Big Tech. In July, she had a private conversation with Apple CEO Tim Cook -- the company in which the couple has traded more frequently and profitably.
As the California Democrat has risen to obtain greater political power, her personal wealth has risen along with it. Pelosi “has seen her wealth increase to nearly $115 million from $41 million in 2004,” reports @OpenSecretsDC.
The part of the media that feigns anger at misinformation is uncritically promoting a story today by Luke Harding that Russia was blackmailing Trump -- the same Harding who has published many false stories, championed the Steele Dossier and claimed Trump was long a Russian agent.
It was Harding who published was one of the most sensationalized stories of the Trump era: that Manafort repeatedly met Assange in the Ecuadorian Embassy. It was utterly fabricated. Everyone knows it's bullshit, never happened. Yet the Guardian has never corrected or retracted it
Now suddenly, Harding claims he obtained leaked, highly sensitive Kremlin documents that just so happen to prove all the lies he's been peddling for years, that not even Mueller's huge team found. Because it advances liberals' interests, journalists are uncritically spreading it.
It's stunning how the networks who put Michael Avenatti on over and over and over and over and depicted him as the Nation's Conscience and even hyped him as a serious presidential contender have all but ignored his prison sentence and multiple other pending felony trials.
And as usual, the standard elite self-exoneration of "we-couldn't-have-known" is utter bullshit. Aside from the fact that the stench of Avenatti's sleazy fraud suffocated anyone within a mile radius, countless people pointed out at the time how exploitative and dishonest he was.
This passage on the role corporate journalists have played in shaping the animating worldview of MAGA supporters -- the intense, often-justified seething contempt they harbor for journalists -- was one of the most important passages of @martyrmade's essay
This @ClayTravis tweet is a pure expression of both neoconservatism and liberal interventionism: the US Govt much change the governments of other countries to "spread democracy & freedom."
What does this have to do with "MAGA" or America First? Seems like its exact opposite.
Also, it's intellectually worthless to demand that the US Government go change the governments of other countries without specifying what you want it to do. Does @ClayTravis want a US military invasion in Havana, a proxy war with Russia, what specifically should the US Govt do?
This is consistent with the "Make America Great Again" and America First ideology. Those who want the US to (further) intervene in Cuba are advocating its opposite:
Tucker Carlson devoted seven minutes of airtime to reading it. Donald Trump heaped praise on it. Cooper went from 7,000 followers to 70,000 in 4 days. Why did this Twitter analysis, explaining the animating perceptions of Trump voters, resonate so widely on the right?
"They could have managed the shock if it only involved the government. But the behavior of the press is what radicalized them. Trump supporters have more contempt for journalists than they have for any politician or government official, because they feel most betrayed by them."