My youtube home page is boosting Tulsi, gunning for Kamala

[iwannaknow]

Is anyone else noticing the same thing? I am fully aware that I, being a Kamala supporter, am possibly being targeted for these anti-Kamala videos. And the only other political videos are pro-Tulsi. What the %^R*$ is going on?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. Russian bots?

[JI7]

3. yes , I'm getting the same thing although Harris is not my first choice

[TomCADem]

50. Bingo

When Harris slammed Gabbard for being a Syrian apologist, Harris started to get targeted

[onecaliberal]

2. It's Russia.

[JI7]

4. did you see the Putin troll that was just here for about an hour

before being banned ?

[DURHAM D]

9. Yes. An hour too long. nt

[onecaliberal]

10. No, but they're much easier to spot these days.

[SCantiGOP]

11. Nyet

Is fake news. No Russians here, nothing to see please move along.

Jill Stein for Prezident.

[blm]

29. The one posed as a Biden supporter, but, raving over Tulsi?

There are a couple of those. Sometimes ‘supporters’ post attacks on other candidates that make me cringe when I see they claim support of Warren. Hard to believe them.

[Eliot Rosewater]

51. Here is how the KGB operatives work

Step One: support someone down the list as to polling, doesnt matter who

Step Two: once that person is no longer running, support the least likely candidate to win so as to pull support from the leader

Step Three: support NOBODY with a D after their name and refuse to say "vote blue no matter who"

[JI7]

6. +

[bigtree]

8. +1

[Princetonian]

20. Who do you suspect of being "paid by the post", Ponietz?

[JI7]

16. hasn't been yet. the ban was for a troll that just came on

about an hour before being banned.

[namahage]

17. Whose sole op, before it was nuked for RW talking points,

had just one rec.

No points for guessing who.

[Princetonian]

21. It was a good telecast from The Hill's Krystal Ball whose truths were inconvenient, namahage.

Bookmarked it.

[Andy823]

18. Yep, still here

Still pushing for Gabbard.

[Princetonian]

22. Really? Who are you referring to, Andy 823?

[Princetonian]

19. Who are you referring to, Frank Booth?

[Princetonian]

23. False: The Hill telecast by Krystal Ball factually verified Gabbard's claims. Nothing RW.

Last edited Mon Aug 26, 2019, 02:25 PM - Edit history (2)

Thanks for showing my reply to the OP. I stand by it.

Anderson Cooper himself verified Gabbard's claims in his post-second debate interview with Gabbard by saying: ""Clearly, you, um, eh, you, your team had done your research and had facts down."" Then he brings up what Harris said when he asked Harris about Tulsi's claims.

Good interview! It must have been so very enlightening to all the Democratic voters who must have watched it live and those who saw it replayed on CNN's Youtube channel and those who saw it the next day on the Anderson Cooper show.

Truth over lies.

[Ponietz]

26. Yesterday it was "media whores"

You’ve lost all credibility with me.

[Princetonian]

32. Anderson Cooper, unlike Chris Cilizza, does not push cherrypicked click bait on Twitter.

Just like there are Democrats who would never smear a fellow Democrat and those who do.

Rhetoric 101. "I don't believe you're a racist, but..." means you're about to imply he's a racist.

[lapucelle]

31. The words put in quotation marks are not what Anderson Cooper actually said. N/T

[Princetonian]

33. Anderson to Tulsi: "Clearly, you, um, you, your team had done your research and had facts down."

[lapucelle]

34. A paraphrase within quotation marks?

Caveat lector.

[Princetonian]

35. "Clearly, you, um, you, your team had done your research and had facts down."

Last edited Mon Aug 26, 2019, 02:39 PM - Edit history (2)

[lapucelle]

36. That's not what the transcript says. N/T

[Princetonian]

37. Watch the video. That's all I care about.

[lapucelle]

38. I did. You're still paraphasing. Do you have a quote of Cooper verifying facts? N/T

[Princetonian]

39. lol! Nice try. Here is the video...

[lapucelle]

40. I did watch the video. The quote is inaccurate and Cooper doesn't verify facts. N/T

[Princetonian]

42. Why don't you show us the transcript? I'll let people decide.

[lapucelle]

43. All people have to do is watch the video. The quote is inaccurate.

Cooper does not verify facts.

[lapucelle]

41. The quote is inaccurate, and Cooper does not verify facts during the interview. N/T

[Princetonian]

44. Show us that transcript. People can watch the interview like so many have already!

"... Cooper does not verify facts during the interview."

Stop twisting what I said.

Let people watch the interview and decide for themselves. I don't have time for your games.

[lapucelle]

45. Here's the interview with closed captions.

"Your team had done your research and had facts down".

[Princetonian]

46. So where's that transcript? People can watch for themselves.

That is not accurate. Anyone can overlay text on a screenshot and present it as fact.

At 2:40, Anderson Cooper says to Tulsi Gabbard, "Clearly, you, um, you, your team had done your research and had facts down."

Let people watch the video and listen for themselves.

[lapucelle]

47. Yes, people should listen to what Cooper says. They can go directly to 2:48

and hear his exact words, compare it to the closed captions, and compare that to the inaccurate renderings that someone earlier took the liberty of posting as direct quotes.

They can listen over, and over, and over, and they will never hear Anderson Cooper verify Tulsi's tale.

[Princetonian]

48. At 2:40, Cooper says:"Clearly, you, um, you, your team had done your research and had facts down."

Repeat: At 2:40, Cooper says:"Clearly, you, um, you, your team had done your research and had facts down." Not 2:48, as you erroneously claimed, lapucelle.

Unless one's hearing is being filtered through a hyperpartisan lens, that would be generally considered an affirmation of Gabbard's claims by Anderson Cooper. His entire matter-of-fact demeanor contributes to this impression.

What really matters is what the audience heard from watching the interview both live and on CNN clips afterwards. I am sure they can make decisions for themselves.

Gabbard has yet to be proven wrong.

CNN asked Harris about it on August 1, showed her a videoclip and she still did not refute Gabbard's claims.

What does that tell you? It tells me that Harris has a lot of explaining to do.

[lapucelle]

49. So the closed captions were accurate; so much for baseless charges.

And the liberties taken with quotes is finally straightened out and corrected by the person who insisted on misquoting.

But the fact remains that Cooper does not verify the claims.

"Your team had done your research and had facts down"

is neither a verification of the facts nor an acceptance of the claims in Tulsi's telling of the tale.

[Iggo]

7. Harris. Gabbard.

[ismnotwasm]

12. I get epoch Times crap

I’ve gotten a Tulsi one as well. I try switching up what I watch, which changes the ads.

What’s scary, is many of my favorites are geared to younger people, so I’m wondering what the algorithm is.

[defacto7]

13. It's one of the key propaganda methods used by Russian and other

East European trolls during the last elections. It keeps reappearing and unless youtube, facebook and twitter curb it it's going to keep coming. Not much else can be done except educate people to ignore it.

[Joe941]

24. I've been getting. Lot of tulsi advertisements here on DU.

[Ponietz]

25. Bill Browder says it's Russian bots

[link:http://

Link to tweet

?s=21|

[DesertRat]

27. Yes, I'm noticing that too.

[pangaia]

28. I don;t get any utub ads

[OnDoutside]

30. Can you alert on it?