My favorite candidate, Tulsi Gabbard: an actual woman of color with clearly defined policies, no bizarre identity politic tactics, no outright lies and deceptions, a veteran who opposes our forever-wars, who doesn’t want to BAN my private insurance(!) — who was completely railroaded by the mainstream media AND the DNC at the same time that Warren was treated like a real candidate.

Tulsi is 100 times the candidate, and she gets no press because she’s anti-war. Both parties are warfare parties first and everything else second, and even Bernie has walked back from his anti-war rhetoric.

But furthermore: let’s assume that the patriarchy undermined both Gabbard and Warren. One of these candidates capitulated immediately, most probably at the behest of the DNC. What’s that saying I keep seeing? Nevertheless she persisted? One of these candidates is persisting, ostensibly because she believes strongly in the causes she’s trying to bring attention to. The other one? She folded.

Nevertheless, Elizabeth Warren persisted, until the DNC told her not to, and then she caved immediately, like a coward who does not deserve our sympathy let alone our votes. FFS. You are quickly becoming the worst writer on Medium. You carry water for the DNC with this, and for you critical thinkers out there, notice that he doesn’t even mention the DNC.

If you think Warren wasn’t told to drop out by the DNC you are kidding yourself. It should be quite clear that Warren had a task here to carve out delegates from Bernie. Ten years ago she was a conservative. Then she suddenly starts adopting Bernie’s policies and we’re supposed to not notice her lane shift but definitely vote for her BECAUSE of her gender? I’m not on city water so I guess I’m not getting a daily dose of DARPA chemicals that would make this scenario make a lick of sense.

But yeah, patriarchy. As a Gabbard supporter, I see through your BS, Umair.