General Politics Discussion (VI) [ARCHIVED] • Page 1014

yr right, warren does have some questionable foreign policy views. there’s really no one up there with a good foreign policy, but Bernie’s is probably the least awful

 

Destroyed people by imprisoning them maybe

 

Don't really see why Gabbard and Yang should be lumped into the same bin.

Gabbard is like a more flawed version of Sanders, where they have a lot in common but the substantial differences are almost all bad on her end.

Yang brings something much different to the table, like it or hate it. The concern over whether his vision for UBI is too damaging to the existing safety net is fair, but the general hostility toward and casual dismissal of him strikes me as a strain of prestige elitism that won't even consider anyone without an established political presence and deep roots in old school progressivism. I really like Sanders and Warren, but the idea that the best progressive solution going forward might be radically different than leaning on the union/jobs guarantee vision that's part of their DNA probably isn't as outrageous as it strikes some.

 

I think the comparison is bc both are played off as progressive, when in reality neither are quite what they’re portrayed as

 

Looks like lots of 4Chan brigading and botnets today.

 

Both pseudo-progressives with bad ideas, extremely bad allies pushing for their success, and zero chance of winning. I think it's that combo why they're sort of tied together.

 

My point is, if we agree there are better candidates, it's probably best to support the better candidate! Even if Tulsi didn't have the alarming red flags, I don't see how she's preferable to Bernie.

 

As it should be. The largest ground force in Syria fighting to overthrow Assad is made up of terrorist groups like al-Qaeda. The US has never been interested in actually fighting al-Qaeda in Syria. Our goal has always been to start a regime change war in the country. Even someone like Ana Kasparian, who is no fan of Tulsi, doesn't think the Assad/Syria stuff is a valid criticism:

 

“When it comes to war against terrorists, i’m a hawk” - Tulsi Gabbard

 

We're gonna disagree on any point where the argument is we should bomb and kill more people.

(And I don't watch The Young Turks and won't, for the record, so sending me their videos is pointless.)

But, she seems to have some issue with Tulsi and her Syria position:

 

I am supporting Tulsi over Bernie currently because I think her foreign policy message is important for the debate stage. Bernie really failed here during the last cycle. Instead of calling out Saudi Arabia for purposefully spreading terrorism over the middle east, he used his time talking about them needing to get their hands dirty. He also failed to explain to the American people why the US keeps starting these regime change wars. Having someone to push Bernie to the left on these issues is not a bad thing.

Also, I do not have time to respond to all of the smears I have seen posted, so I am going to leave this link here that has a lot of good sources refuting some of them:

Mod edit: here's the giant link (the embed was too big)

 

The bolded is also what I suspected plays a big role in the hostility, and I generally think it's way overblown as an important point of judgment on a candidate. It's like the converse of the whole "enemy of my enemy is my friend" logic... guilt by even the loosest association.

The progression of "outside the box left-leaning candidate crops up, generates interest that extends more broadly beyond the typical partisan boundaries than usual, immediately gets accused of being a right-winger in disguise by partisan Dems" is super unhelpful to the process. In my view, it explains a lot of how Bernie got smeared unjustly in 2016. Now, an even broader swath of liberals (including some Warren/Sanders supporters) are sort of doing the same thing with Yang. Again, I'm not outright promoting Yang as a wonderful candidate, but the shit talking every time his name comes up doesn't feel commensurate with anything based in reality.

 

It's not misleading at all how you left out the second half of that quote...

 

Sorry guys, turns out I'm a 1%-er


Global Rich List

 

Foreign policy is absolutely Warren's biggest flaw / blind spot relative to Bernie.

That said, the North Korea section of that article is quite misleading on at least one front.

The idea that she was advocating for Trump to be "aggressive" is absurd if you actually click on the link from that section and read the whole story:

She "lauded" the diplomacy, but was worried that an understaffed State Department and an ignorant Trump would be ineffective.

When there are so many legitimate areas to question, I'm not sure why the author chose to fabricate one?

 

Ah, I don't watch them either, but Kyle Kulinski, who is the guest in that interview is great.

And that Tweet has nothing to do with what we were talking about even. Here is her statement on that vote though: Open Letter from Rep. Tulsi Gabbard Regarding SAFE Act

 

"The US was never interested in fighting AQ in Syria and just wanted regime change" obviously true on its face "we should be bombing Al Qaeda" literally just the rationale for starting the Afghanistan War

 

Like, Tulsi doesn't like Assad because of anti-imperialism, she likes him because his opposition are salafists. Obviously salafism is bad and a central part of the critique of Saudi Arabia but Ted Cruz also thinks salafism is bad, its just that Tulsi doesn't pretend that Hezbollah and Al Qaeda are the same thing like republicans and traditional dem hawks do

 

I'm gonna be honest, if you agree to go on Tucker Carlsons show - that is, if you agree to legitimise a white nationalists platform - that's an immediate GTFO for me. I don't need to know anything else.

 

I don't. His judgement matters, and his judgement in this field has been to walk with and come right up next to these groups. His interviews on Tucker Carlson show and with shitty bro-right YouTubers is not loose association. He actively feeds into the Far Right narrative:

By these objectives, Yang’s interview did more to bolster the doom-and-gloom narrative that Carlson feeds his audience — which benefits populist politicians like Donald Trump — than improve the standing of his ideas. Yang can avoid falling into this trap by making sure to pair his description of the country with his ideas for improving it. Better still would be re-examining his premise of the country’s perils: his policies like UBI don’t need it, and the evidence contradicts it.

I think looking at who is cheering on a candidate and wants them to win, and what that candidate then does with that group, is one way to judge their judgement. Heading on over to the White Power Hour to do interviews, while being propped up online by the alt-right, is ... uh ... a bad look. (It's not the only thing that matters, of course, but it does matter to me.)

He's not being called a right winger in disguise for any reason other than his own words about the backdoor UBI into slashing entitlements, which is a right wing fever dream. His key policy has that massive flaw and he hasn't fixed it. How is it unhelpful to point that out?

I've seen multiple people point out the reality multiple times. I'll go with another one, from last night:

Andrew Yang Is Not Your Climate Friend

During the primary debates, Democratic candidates repeatedly accused each other of using “Republican talking points.”

But it was Andrew Yang who actually deployed a hyper-conservative argument on Wednesday night—albeit one that had somehow time traveled from the year 2080.

Asked in very general terms about his climate-change plan, Yang, a former technology executive, made a few points. Almost all of them were terrible.

 

Tucker is a racist POS for sure, but for whatever reason he tells the truth about regime change wars more than most TV hosts. I have no problem with candidates appearing on any network that will have them as long as they push a progressive message on the show, which Tulsi has always done. You never know who is watching. Plus if you are going to start boycotting networks, I could find plenty of reasons to add CNN and MSNBC to the list. All of them lean conservative at the end of the day. Just look at how most of the debate questions were framed. Not to mention CNN frequently pulls shit like this: Footage Contradicts U.S. Claim That Nicolás Maduro Burned Aid Convoy

 

Fair enough. None of the Dem candidates are against completely ending bombings/drone strikes though. So it feels odd to single out Tulsi for it. The Green Party is the only place to go for that message.

Tulsi still has had the strongest anti war message on the debate stage. She's called out Saudi Arabia twice now and was quickly shut up both times haha. It's just crazy to me people don't want that message on the stage.

 

And the part I keep coming up against is how the second part of that ends up making the candidate saying it ... somehow the anti-war candidate (and deemed as such by people like Ann fucking Coulter). (We need an actual anti-war candidate and party.)

 

Ahh, yes, like her hilarious "I'm suing Google cause we don't know how spam works" progressive message on her last appearance.

 

Honest question:

You are satisfied with the reasoning she lays out in this letter? Because it sounds pretty fucking Islamophobic to me.