538: Liberals Would Be Foolish To Primary Joe Manchin

[windjammer]

You guys can keep making excuses for Gabbard, pretending she's a True Progressive and whitewashing all of her right-wing positions and posturing, but you and I both know the only reason you consider her such is because she supported Bernie. This is why "the Left" in this country will continue to fail: no different than the establishment, just wants its ass kissed at every turn and will defend its own cult of personality - even from its own proclaimed ideals.

Adam, you give too much importance for random trolls on the internet.

[Adam Griffin]

You guys can keep making excuses for Gabbard, pretending she's a True Progressive and whitewashing all of her right-wing positions and posturing, but you and I both know the only reason you consider her such is because she supported Bernie. This is why "the Left" in this country will continue to fail: no different than the establishment, just wants its ass kissed at every turn and will defend its own cult of personality - even from its own proclaimed ideals.

Adam, you give too much importance for random trolls on the internet.

Story of my life

[Blackacre]

How did a thread about Manchin turn into a thread about Tulsi?

[BuckeyeNut]

How did a thread about Manchin turn into a thread about Tulsi?

They both represent the far right-wing of elected Democrats?

[OSR stands with Israel]

What exactly does qualify for progressiveness? Certification from the Clinton Campaign?

I'll tell you disqualifies: supporting (literally, with money) far-right Indian political parties that advocate for ethnic cleansing because of your personal religious views, and attacking Obama's foreign policy from the right because it is too lax for your tastes because "I was a soldier blah blah blah".

If the bulk of establishment Democratic politicians can be rendered neoliberal shills or whatever because of positions on a handful of issues specific to their constituencies (or not), then people like Gabbard certainly are disqualified from being called "progressive" by anybody intellectually and ideologically consistent. Except that so many of the pious are anything but: their definition of "progressive" hinges solely on whether a person supported Bernie or not, or was a perceived ally or foe in that broader struggle. Actual policies don't matter; it's a cult of personality above all else.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is just another example of why "the Left" in America is a joke and a disorganized MESS and will never accomplish anything meaningful in its current incarnation. I pray for the day that that changes, I really do, considering that I am ideologically there 100%...but the broader movement in the present day is filled with low-information hypocrites, niche organizers who are so obsessed with their own little fiefdoms that they miss the bigger picture of political intersectionality, and a bunch of effete urban kids and worn-out hippies that eschew the power of institutional control.

The first one there isn't necessarily the problem (though annoying as hell and negates any legitimate sense of political/ideological superiority these people have about themselves), but the latter two are dynamics where the Right gets it and they rule because of it.

I would like to know more about this Ethnic Cleansing group which Gabbard supported because that's just a flat untrue statement used to to smear her. What exactly did she say & how did she support ethnic cleansing groups ? (No-one deserves to be called a supporter of ethnic cleansing untruly !)

Here you go.

The BJP is known as a Center Right party & has some fringe religious nutjob elements but is a democratic political party (Ethnic Cleansing seriously ??) It is infact currently in power & had actually appointed a Muslim as the President years ago. If you go to the International Elections thread, you will see the BJP is winning the Muslim vote in recent state elections. Just to add the current PM who is known as a right wing guy took strong opposition to Trump's call for barring Muslims & said Islam shouldn't be directly linked to terrorism. If you want to pick a few fringe elements of a main-stream Center-Right party & paint the entire party as nutjobs, that is wrong.

Secondly, there is nothing wrong in Tulsi's stand - The House Bill was ridiculous & was introduced more than 10 years after some Indian riots in the PM's home state, suddenly before a country wide elections where the BJP was expected to win & there was no religious riots happening then (totally irrelevant issue to bring up & meant to influence votes). The PM was acquitted by multiple courts on any role in the religious riots which took place 10-12-15 years ago !What exactly is Gabbard's fault - Asking US to not try to influence foreign elections or receiving Individual campaign donations from people who maybe are religious non-violent nutjobs or posing for picture with some person who makes a stupid religious tweet months or years later?

Then there are so many inaccuracies in the entire post like saying the PM moving India closer to the "Zionist Evil Israel" ! Well the PM also moved India closer diplomatically to both Iran & Saudi Arabia & many other Muslim nations! Also about Tulsi vs Obama about cause of extremism, I think that Poverty alone is not the key factor (Radical religious outlook is there too) but poverty helps in recruiting foot soldiers. So I don't 100% agree with Tulsi there but that makes her not a progressive ?

But the campaign here against Tulsi is flat out smear !

Supporting Indian Imperialism and right-wing policies for the subjugation of other countries, minority communities, sad, sad , sad. The government of gujurat was complicit in the riots in Gujurat,

"Summarising academic views on the subject, Martha Nussbaum said: "There is by now a broad consensus that the Gujarat violence was a form of ethnic cleansing, that in many ways it was premeditated, and that it was carried out with the complicity of the state government and officers of the law." The Modi government imposed a curfew in 26 major cities, issued shoot-at-sight orders and called for the army to patrol the streets.

The president of the state unit of the BJP expressed support for the bandh, despite such actions being illegal at the time. State officials later prevented riot victims from leaving the refugee camps, and the camps were often unable to meet the needs of those living there. Muslim victims of the riots were subject to further discrimination when the state government announced that compensation for Muslim victims would be half of that offered to Hindus.

BUT THE SUPREME COURT ACQUITTED HIM, SO HE MUST BE FINE! Yes accepting donations from right-wing discriminatory violent nut jobs is a problem.



https://www.theatlantic.com/news/archive/2017/01/the-organization-that-sent-tulsi-gabbard-to-syria/514763/




Going to Assad, to shoot off talking point for the government, and meeting a leader that uses chemical warfare on it's citizens, without being president.

Going to Syria based upon anti-Semitic, dictatorial and fascist ba'thist party would be wrong yes.

modi is not part of the fringe wing of the bjp(which is bad), he is more part of the mainstream wing of the bjp, just like how Marco Rubio is not a Tea Party republican but a Mainstream Republican. Also how does shaking hands with modi equal supporting him.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Did you see Bernie's town hall in WV? The Democratic party's neoliberalism is what is killing it in WV.

"Neoliberalism" or "neoliberal" has lost all meaning at this point. These people want universal health care, yes, but once you get into the specifics of the plan, they recoil with horror. It's no coincidence that Bill Clinton and the 3rd Way-lead Democratic party easily won WV in 1992 and 1996, but then as the national party moved left, the state voted GOP at increasing margins. These people are not going to magically turn into flaming liberals if Bernie Sanders is the Democratic nominee. If the Democrats really want to win West Virginia, they must run politicians opposed to any forms of gun control, and who will at the very least pay some lip service to King Coal.  

Robert Byrd a liberal (he was one from the 1980s on ) and won easily in WV.

[Heisenberg]

Did you see Bernie's town hall in WV? The Democratic party's neoliberalism is what is killing it in WV.

"Neoliberalism" or "neoliberal" has lost all meaning at this point. These people want universal health care, yes, but once you get into the specifics of the plan, they recoil with horror. It's no coincidence that Bill Clinton and the 3rd Way-lead Democratic party easily won WV in 1992 and 1996, but then as the national party moved left, the state voted GOP at increasing margins. These people are not going to magically turn into flaming liberals if Bernie Sanders is the Democratic nominee. If the Democrats really want to win West Virginia, they must run politicians opposed to any forms of gun control, and who will at the very least pay some lip service to King Coal.  

Robert Byrd a liberal (he was one from the 1980s on ) and won easily in WV.

Of course at that point it became all about seniority.

[AtorBoltox]

What exactly does qualify for progressiveness? Certification from the Clinton Campaign?

I'll tell you disqualifies: supporting (literally, with money) far-right Indian political parties that advocate for ethnic cleansing because of your personal religious views, and attacking Obama's foreign policy from the right because it is too lax for your tastes because "I was a soldier blah blah blah".

If the bulk of establishment Democratic politicians can be rendered neoliberal shills or whatever because of positions on a handful of issues specific to their constituencies (or not), then people like Gabbard certainly are disqualified from being called "progressive" by anybody intellectually and ideologically consistent. Except that so many of the pious are anything but: their definition of "progressive" hinges solely on whether a person supported Bernie or not, or was a perceived ally or foe in that broader struggle. Actual policies don't matter; it's a cult of personality above all else.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is just another example of why "the Left" in America is a joke and a disorganized MESS and will never accomplish anything meaningful in its current incarnation. I pray for the day that that changes, I really do, considering that I am ideologically there 100%...but the broader movement in the present day is filled with low-information hypocrites, niche organizers who are so obsessed with their own little fiefdoms that they miss the bigger picture of political intersectionality, and a bunch of effete urban kids and worn-out hippies that eschew the power of institutional control.

The first one there isn't necessarily the problem (though annoying as hell and negates any legitimate sense of political/ideological superiority these people have about themselves), but the latter two are dynamics where the Right gets it and they rule because of it.

I would like to know more about this Ethnic Cleansing group which Gabbard supported because that's just a flat untrue statement used to to smear her. What exactly did she say & how did she support ethnic cleansing groups ? (No-one deserves to be called a supporter of ethnic cleansing untruly !)

Here you go.

The BJP is known as a Center Right party & has some fringe religious nutjob elements but is a democratic political party (Ethnic Cleansing seriously ??) It is infact currently in power & had actually appointed a Muslim as the President years ago. If you go to the International Elections thread, you will see the BJP is winning the Muslim vote in recent state elections. Just to add the current PM who is known as a right wing guy took strong opposition to Trump's call for barring Muslims & said Islam shouldn't be directly linked to terrorism. If you want to pick a few fringe elements of a main-stream Center-Right party & paint the entire party as nutjobs, that is wrong.

Secondly, there is nothing wrong in Tulsi's stand - The House Bill was ridiculous & was introduced more than 10 years after some Indian riots in the PM's home state, suddenly before a country wide elections where the BJP was expected to win & there was no religious riots happening then (totally irrelevant issue to bring up & meant to influence votes). The PM was acquitted by multiple courts on any role in the religious riots which took place 10-12-15 years ago !What exactly is Gabbard's fault - Asking US to not try to influence foreign elections or receiving Individual campaign donations from people who maybe are religious non-violent nutjobs or posing for picture with some person who makes a stupid religious tweet months or years later?

Then there are so many inaccuracies in the entire post like saying the PM moving India closer to the "Zionist Evil Israel" ! Well the PM also moved India closer diplomatically to both Iran & Saudi Arabia & many other Muslim nations! Also about Tulsi vs Obama about cause of extremism, I think that Poverty alone is not the key factor (Radical religious outlook is there too) but poverty helps in recruiting foot soldiers. So I don't 100% agree with Tulsi there but that makes her not a progressive ?

But the campaign here against Tulsi is flat out smear !

Supporting Indian Imperialism and right-wing policies for the subjugation of other countries, minority communities, sad, sad , sad. The government of gujurat was complicit in the riots in Gujurat,

"Summarising academic views on the subject, Martha Nussbaum said: "There is by now a broad consensus that the Gujarat violence was a form of ethnic cleansing, that in many ways it was premeditated, and that it was carried out with the complicity of the state government and officers of the law." The Modi government imposed a curfew in 26 major cities, issued shoot-at-sight orders and called for the army to patrol the streets.

The president of the state unit of the BJP expressed support for the bandh, despite such actions being illegal at the time. State officials later prevented riot victims from leaving the refugee camps, and the camps were often unable to meet the needs of those living there. Muslim victims of the riots were subject to further discrimination when the state government announced that compensation for Muslim victims would be half of that offered to Hindus.

BUT THE SUPREME COURT ACQUITTED HIM, SO HE MUST BE FINE! Yes accepting donations from right-wing discriminatory violent nut jobs is a problem.



https://www.theatlantic.com/news/archive/2017/01/the-organization-that-sent-tulsi-gabbard-to-syria/514763/




Going to Assad, to shoot off talking point for the government, and meeting a leader that uses chemical warfare on it's citizens, without being president.

Going to Syria based upon anti-Semitic, dictatorial and fascist ba'thist party would be wrong yes.

modi is not part of the fringe wing of the bjp(which is bad), he is more part of the mainstream wing of the bjp, just like how Marco Rubio is not a Tea Party republican but a Mainstream Republican. Also how does shaking hands with modi equal supporting him.

Gee, if tacitly approving of ethnic cleansing is 'moderate' how extreme is the fringe?

[OSR stands with Israel]

What exactly does qualify for progressiveness? Certification from the Clinton Campaign?

I'll tell you disqualifies: supporting (literally, with money) far-right Indian political parties that advocate for ethnic cleansing because of your personal religious views, and attacking Obama's foreign policy from the right because it is too lax for your tastes because "I was a soldier blah blah blah".

If the bulk of establishment Democratic politicians can be rendered neoliberal shills or whatever because of positions on a handful of issues specific to their constituencies (or not), then people like Gabbard certainly are disqualified from being called "progressive" by anybody intellectually and ideologically consistent. Except that so many of the pious are anything but: their definition of "progressive" hinges solely on whether a person supported Bernie or not, or was a perceived ally or foe in that broader struggle. Actual policies don't matter; it's a cult of personality above all else.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is just another example of why "the Left" in America is a joke and a disorganized MESS and will never accomplish anything meaningful in its current incarnation. I pray for the day that that changes, I really do, considering that I am ideologically there 100%...but the broader movement in the present day is filled with low-information hypocrites, niche organizers who are so obsessed with their own little fiefdoms that they miss the bigger picture of political intersectionality, and a bunch of effete urban kids and worn-out hippies that eschew the power of institutional control.

The first one there isn't necessarily the problem (though annoying as hell and negates any legitimate sense of political/ideological superiority these people have about themselves), but the latter two are dynamics where the Right gets it and they rule because of it.

I would like to know more about this Ethnic Cleansing group which Gabbard supported because that's just a flat untrue statement used to to smear her. What exactly did she say & how did she support ethnic cleansing groups ? (No-one deserves to be called a supporter of ethnic cleansing untruly !)

Here you go.

The BJP is known as a Center Right party & has some fringe religious nutjob elements but is a democratic political party (Ethnic Cleansing seriously ??) It is infact currently in power & had actually appointed a Muslim as the President years ago. If you go to the International Elections thread, you will see the BJP is winning the Muslim vote in recent state elections. Just to add the current PM who is known as a right wing guy took strong opposition to Trump's call for barring Muslims & said Islam shouldn't be directly linked to terrorism. If you want to pick a few fringe elements of a main-stream Center-Right party & paint the entire party as nutjobs, that is wrong.

Secondly, there is nothing wrong in Tulsi's stand - The House Bill was ridiculous & was introduced more than 10 years after some Indian riots in the PM's home state, suddenly before a country wide elections where the BJP was expected to win & there was no religious riots happening then (totally irrelevant issue to bring up & meant to influence votes). The PM was acquitted by multiple courts on any role in the religious riots which took place 10-12-15 years ago !What exactly is Gabbard's fault - Asking US to not try to influence foreign elections or receiving Individual campaign donations from people who maybe are religious non-violent nutjobs or posing for picture with some person who makes a stupid religious tweet months or years later?

Then there are so many inaccuracies in the entire post like saying the PM moving India closer to the "Zionist Evil Israel" ! Well the PM also moved India closer diplomatically to both Iran & Saudi Arabia & many other Muslim nations! Also about Tulsi vs Obama about cause of extremism, I think that Poverty alone is not the key factor (Radical religious outlook is there too) but poverty helps in recruiting foot soldiers. So I don't 100% agree with Tulsi there but that makes her not a progressive ?

But the campaign here against Tulsi is flat out smear !

Supporting Indian Imperialism and right-wing policies for the subjugation of other countries, minority communities, sad, sad , sad. The government of gujurat was complicit in the riots in Gujurat,

"Summarising academic views on the subject, Martha Nussbaum said: "There is by now a broad consensus that the Gujarat violence was a form of ethnic cleansing, that in many ways it was premeditated, and that it was carried out with the complicity of the state government and officers of the law." The Modi government imposed a curfew in 26 major cities, issued shoot-at-sight orders and called for the army to patrol the streets.

The president of the state unit of the BJP expressed support for the bandh, despite such actions being illegal at the time. State officials later prevented riot victims from leaving the refugee camps, and the camps were often unable to meet the needs of those living there. Muslim victims of the riots were subject to further discrimination when the state government announced that compensation for Muslim victims would be half of that offered to Hindus.

BUT THE SUPREME COURT ACQUITTED HIM, SO HE MUST BE FINE! Yes accepting donations from right-wing discriminatory violent nut jobs is a problem.



https://www.theatlantic.com/news/archive/2017/01/the-organization-that-sent-tulsi-gabbard-to-syria/514763/




Going to Assad, to shoot off talking point for the government, and meeting a leader that uses chemical warfare on it's citizens, without being president.

Going to Syria based upon anti-Semitic, dictatorial and fascist ba'thist party would be wrong yes.

modi is not part of the fringe wing of the bjp(which is bad), he is more part of the mainstream wing of the bjp, just like how Marco Rubio is not a Tea Party republican but a Mainstream Republican. Also how does shaking hands with modi equal supporting him.

Gee, if tacitly approving of ethnic cleansing is 'moderate' how extreme is the fringe?

no he doesnt

[Intell]

What exactly does qualify for progressiveness? Certification from the Clinton Campaign?

I'll tell you disqualifies: supporting (literally, with money) far-right Indian political parties that advocate for ethnic cleansing because of your personal religious views, and attacking Obama's foreign policy from the right because it is too lax for your tastes because "I was a soldier blah blah blah".

If the bulk of establishment Democratic politicians can be rendered neoliberal shills or whatever because of positions on a handful of issues specific to their constituencies (or not), then people like Gabbard certainly are disqualified from being called "progressive" by anybody intellectually and ideologically consistent. Except that so many of the pious are anything but: their definition of "progressive" hinges solely on whether a person supported Bernie or not, or was a perceived ally or foe in that broader struggle. Actual policies don't matter; it's a cult of personality above all else.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is just another example of why "the Left" in America is a joke and a disorganized MESS and will never accomplish anything meaningful in its current incarnation. I pray for the day that that changes, I really do, considering that I am ideologically there 100%...but the broader movement in the present day is filled with low-information hypocrites, niche organizers who are so obsessed with their own little fiefdoms that they miss the bigger picture of political intersectionality, and a bunch of effete urban kids and worn-out hippies that eschew the power of institutional control.

The first one there isn't necessarily the problem (though annoying as hell and negates any legitimate sense of political/ideological superiority these people have about themselves), but the latter two are dynamics where the Right gets it and they rule because of it.

I would like to know more about this Ethnic Cleansing group which Gabbard supported because that's just a flat untrue statement used to to smear her. What exactly did she say & how did she support ethnic cleansing groups ? (No-one deserves to be called a supporter of ethnic cleansing untruly !)

Here you go.

The BJP is known as a Center Right party & has some fringe religious nutjob elements but is a democratic political party (Ethnic Cleansing seriously ??) It is infact currently in power & had actually appointed a Muslim as the President years ago. If you go to the International Elections thread, you will see the BJP is winning the Muslim vote in recent state elections. Just to add the current PM who is known as a right wing guy took strong opposition to Trump's call for barring Muslims & said Islam shouldn't be directly linked to terrorism. If you want to pick a few fringe elements of a main-stream Center-Right party & paint the entire party as nutjobs, that is wrong.

Secondly, there is nothing wrong in Tulsi's stand - The House Bill was ridiculous & was introduced more than 10 years after some Indian riots in the PM's home state, suddenly before a country wide elections where the BJP was expected to win & there was no religious riots happening then (totally irrelevant issue to bring up & meant to influence votes). The PM was acquitted by multiple courts on any role in the religious riots which took place 10-12-15 years ago !What exactly is Gabbard's fault - Asking US to not try to influence foreign elections or receiving Individual campaign donations from people who maybe are religious non-violent nutjobs or posing for picture with some person who makes a stupid religious tweet months or years later?

Then there are so many inaccuracies in the entire post like saying the PM moving India closer to the "Zionist Evil Israel" ! Well the PM also moved India closer diplomatically to both Iran & Saudi Arabia & many other Muslim nations! Also about Tulsi vs Obama about cause of extremism, I think that Poverty alone is not the key factor (Radical religious outlook is there too) but poverty helps in recruiting foot soldiers. So I don't 100% agree with Tulsi there but that makes her not a progressive ?

But the campaign here against Tulsi is flat out smear !

Supporting Indian Imperialism and right-wing policies for the subjugation of other countries, minority communities, sad, sad , sad. The government of gujurat was complicit in the riots in Gujurat,

"Summarising academic views on the subject, Martha Nussbaum said: "There is by now a broad consensus that the Gujarat violence was a form of ethnic cleansing, that in many ways it was premeditated, and that it was carried out with the complicity of the state government and officers of the law." The Modi government imposed a curfew in 26 major cities, issued shoot-at-sight orders and called for the army to patrol the streets.

The president of the state unit of the BJP expressed support for the bandh, despite such actions being illegal at the time. State officials later prevented riot victims from leaving the refugee camps, and the camps were often unable to meet the needs of those living there. Muslim victims of the riots were subject to further discrimination when the state government announced that compensation for Muslim victims would be half of that offered to Hindus.

BUT THE SUPREME COURT ACQUITTED HIM, SO HE MUST BE FINE! Yes accepting donations from right-wing discriminatory violent nut jobs is a problem.



https://www.theatlantic.com/news/archive/2017/01/the-organization-that-sent-tulsi-gabbard-to-syria/514763/




Going to Assad, to shoot off talking point for the government, and meeting a leader that uses chemical warfare on it's citizens, without being president.

Going to Syria based upon anti-Semitic, dictatorial and fascist ba'thist party would be wrong yes.

modi is not part of the fringe wing of the bjp(which is bad), he is more part of the mainstream wing of the bjp, just like how Marco Rubio is not a Tea Party republican but a Mainstream Republican. Also how does shaking hands with modi equal supporting him.

Gee, if tacitly approving of ethnic cleansing is 'moderate' how extreme is the fringe?

no he doesnt

Yet he is complicit in his administration in it. Gujarat is also not the beacon of progress, and in many cases more flawed than other states.

[Shadows]

What exactly does qualify for progressiveness? Certification from the Clinton Campaign?

I'll tell you disqualifies: supporting (literally, with money) far-right Indian political parties that advocate for ethnic cleansing because of your personal religious views, and attacking Obama's foreign policy from the right because it is too lax for your tastes because "I was a soldier blah blah blah".

If the bulk of establishment Democratic politicians can be rendered neoliberal shills or whatever because of positions on a handful of issues specific to their constituencies (or not), then people like Gabbard certainly are disqualified from being called "progressive" by anybody intellectually and ideologically consistent. Except that so many of the pious are anything but: their definition of "progressive" hinges solely on whether a person supported Bernie or not, or was a perceived ally or foe in that broader struggle. Actual policies don't matter; it's a cult of personality above all else.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is just another example of why "the Left" in America is a joke and a disorganized MESS and will never accomplish anything meaningful in its current incarnation. I pray for the day that that changes, I really do, considering that I am ideologically there 100%...but the broader movement in the present day is filled with low-information hypocrites, niche organizers who are so obsessed with their own little fiefdoms that they miss the bigger picture of political intersectionality, and a bunch of effete urban kids and worn-out hippies that eschew the power of institutional control.

The first one there isn't necessarily the problem (though annoying as hell and negates any legitimate sense of political/ideological superiority these people have about themselves), but the latter two are dynamics where the Right gets it and they rule because of it.

I would like to know more about this Ethnic Cleansing group which Gabbard supported because that's just a flat untrue statement used to to smear her. What exactly did she say & how did she support ethnic cleansing groups ? (No-one deserves to be called a supporter of ethnic cleansing untruly !)

Here you go.

The BJP is known as a Center Right party & has some fringe religious nutjob elements but is a democratic political party (Ethnic Cleansing seriously ??) It is infact currently in power & had actually appointed a Muslim as the President years ago. If you go to the International Elections thread, you will see the BJP is winning the Muslim vote in recent state elections. Just to add the current PM who is known as a right wing guy took strong opposition to Trump's call for barring Muslims & said Islam shouldn't be directly linked to terrorism. If you want to pick a few fringe elements of a main-stream Center-Right party & paint the entire party as nutjobs, that is wrong.

Secondly, there is nothing wrong in Tulsi's stand - The House Bill was ridiculous & was introduced more than 10 years after some Indian riots in the PM's home state, suddenly before a country wide elections where the BJP was expected to win & there was no religious riots happening then (totally irrelevant issue to bring up & meant to influence votes). The PM was acquitted by multiple courts on any role in the religious riots which took place 10-12-15 years ago !What exactly is Gabbard's fault - Asking US to not try to influence foreign elections or receiving Individual campaign donations from people who maybe are religious non-violent nutjobs or posing for picture with some person who makes a stupid religious tweet months or years later?

Then there are so many inaccuracies in the entire post like saying the PM moving India closer to the "Zionist Evil Israel" ! Well the PM also moved India closer diplomatically to both Iran & Saudi Arabia & many other Muslim nations! Also about Tulsi vs Obama about cause of extremism, I think that Poverty alone is not the key factor (Radical religious outlook is there too) but poverty helps in recruiting foot soldiers. So I don't 100% agree with Tulsi there but that makes her not a progressive ?

But the campaign here against Tulsi is flat out smear !

Supporting Indian Imperialism and right-wing policies for the subjugation of other countries, minority communities, sad, sad , sad. The government of gujurat was complicit in the riots in Gujurat,

"Summarising academic views on the subject, Martha Nussbaum said: "There is by now a broad consensus that the Gujarat violence was a form of ethnic cleansing, that in many ways it was premeditated, and that it was carried out with the complicity of the state government and officers of the law." The Modi government imposed a curfew in 26 major cities, issued shoot-at-sight orders and called for the army to patrol the streets.

The president of the state unit of the BJP expressed support for the bandh, despite such actions being illegal at the time. State officials later prevented riot victims from leaving the refugee camps, and the camps were often unable to meet the needs of those living there. Muslim victims of the riots were subject to further discrimination when the state government announced that compensation for Muslim victims would be half of that offered to Hindus.

BUT THE SUPREME COURT ACQUITTED HIM, SO HE MUST BE FINE! Yes accepting donations from right-wing discriminatory violent nut jobs is a problem.



https://www.theatlantic.com/news/archive/2017/01/the-organization-that-sent-tulsi-gabbard-to-syria/514763/




Going to Assad, to shoot off talking point for the government, and meeting a leader that uses chemical warfare on it's citizens, without being president.

Going to Syria based upon anti-Semitic, dictatorial and fascist ba'thist party would be wrong yes.

Intel – I think the discussion  paints a completely ridiculous picture. The question isn’t if Modi or BJP is progressive, as I said they are center right party with some religious nutjobs. The question isn’t if progressives should look upon them favorably, there is nothing positive for progressives about right wing politics with a flair for ultra religious elements.

The riots were deplorable & I think there is data available in wiki too, but if anyone says it was used as ethnic cleansing, then it was a flat-out life. The riots started when 50-60 odd Hindu pilgrims were burned alive by a Muslim mob in a train, innocent Hindu pilgrims were burned alive. What followed was co-ordinated attacks against Muslim people by Hindu religious groups who massacred many Muslims. There was obviously some retaliation by Muslim group too against Hindus but they were outnumbered. In the end, as per wiki 790 Muslims & 254 Hindus died in religious clashes.

Modi was never accused of having any role in these riots as Chief Minister, instead the allegation was that he didn't involve the state apparatus to protect the vulnerable including Muslims, a charge turned down by many Courts. Did Modi do his best? No1 really knows. Could another CM do a better job? Probably Yes, there was big failure for the state if such large scale riots happen. Should progressives like such politics - Hell No !

But it was not ethnic cleansing because Muslim religious groups came 1st & burned Hindus & then Hindu religious groups came & (sadly) massacred even more Muslims (with some retaliation from outnumbered Muslims !).

Painting the entire BJP party as imperialistic & for ethnic cleansing is completely wrong. There are millions & millions of BJP members, BJP won Muslim votes, have Muslims ministers & appointed a Muslim President too - Just to say if you receive donation from anyone tied to BJP makes you for ethnic cleansing is flat out ridiculous.

Intel - You don't support imperialism etc if you make balanced criticism rather then exaggerated criticism. Just because I am not saying BJP is evil like you, doesn't mean I am condoning or supporting it.

Let me give you examples from what I could find - BJP currently under Modi increased maternity leave massively, imposed Carbon taxes, increased tax on wealthy etc - So let's say among many bad right wing policies & encouraging religious fringe, these were good measures.

You can be objective & blast bad stuff without painting in broad brush an entire political party as evil due to a few incidents involving some people !

[Intell]

What exactly does qualify for progressiveness? Certification from the Clinton Campaign?

I'll tell you disqualifies: supporting (literally, with money) far-right Indian political parties that advocate for ethnic cleansing because of your personal religious views, and attacking Obama's foreign policy from the right because it is too lax for your tastes because "I was a soldier blah blah blah".

If the bulk of establishment Democratic politicians can be rendered neoliberal shills or whatever because of positions on a handful of issues specific to their constituencies (or not), then people like Gabbard certainly are disqualified from being called "progressive" by anybody intellectually and ideologically consistent. Except that so many of the pious are anything but: their definition of "progressive" hinges solely on whether a person supported Bernie or not, or was a perceived ally or foe in that broader struggle. Actual policies don't matter; it's a cult of personality above all else.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is just another example of why "the Left" in America is a joke and a disorganized MESS and will never accomplish anything meaningful in its current incarnation. I pray for the day that that changes, I really do, considering that I am ideologically there 100%...but the broader movement in the present day is filled with low-information hypocrites, niche organizers who are so obsessed with their own little fiefdoms that they miss the bigger picture of political intersectionality, and a bunch of effete urban kids and worn-out hippies that eschew the power of institutional control.

The first one there isn't necessarily the problem (though annoying as hell and negates any legitimate sense of political/ideological superiority these people have about themselves), but the latter two are dynamics where the Right gets it and they rule because of it.

I would like to know more about this Ethnic Cleansing group which Gabbard supported because that's just a flat untrue statement used to to smear her. What exactly did she say & how did she support ethnic cleansing groups ? (No-one deserves to be called a supporter of ethnic cleansing untruly !)

Here you go.

The BJP is known as a Center Right party & has some fringe religious nutjob elements but is a democratic political party (Ethnic Cleansing seriously ??) It is infact currently in power & had actually appointed a Muslim as the President years ago. If you go to the International Elections thread, you will see the BJP is winning the Muslim vote in recent state elections. Just to add the current PM who is known as a right wing guy took strong opposition to Trump's call for barring Muslims & said Islam shouldn't be directly linked to terrorism. If you want to pick a few fringe elements of a main-stream Center-Right party & paint the entire party as nutjobs, that is wrong.

Secondly, there is nothing wrong in Tulsi's stand - The House Bill was ridiculous & was introduced more than 10 years after some Indian riots in the PM's home state, suddenly before a country wide elections where the BJP was expected to win & there was no religious riots happening then (totally irrelevant issue to bring up & meant to influence votes). The PM was acquitted by multiple courts on any role in the religious riots which took place 10-12-15 years ago !What exactly is Gabbard's fault - Asking US to not try to influence foreign elections or receiving Individual campaign donations from people who maybe are religious non-violent nutjobs or posing for picture with some person who makes a stupid religious tweet months or years later?

Then there are so many inaccuracies in the entire post like saying the PM moving India closer to the "Zionist Evil Israel" ! Well the PM also moved India closer diplomatically to both Iran & Saudi Arabia & many other Muslim nations! Also about Tulsi vs Obama about cause of extremism, I think that Poverty alone is not the key factor (Radical religious outlook is there too) but poverty helps in recruiting foot soldiers. So I don't 100% agree with Tulsi there but that makes her not a progressive ?

But the campaign here against Tulsi is flat out smear !

Supporting Indian Imperialism and right-wing policies for the subjugation of other countries, minority communities, sad, sad , sad. The government of gujurat was complicit in the riots in Gujurat,

"Summarising academic views on the subject, Martha Nussbaum said: "There is by now a broad consensus that the Gujarat violence was a form of ethnic cleansing, that in many ways it was premeditated, and that it was carried out with the complicity of the state government and officers of the law." The Modi government imposed a curfew in 26 major cities, issued shoot-at-sight orders and called for the army to patrol the streets.

The president of the state unit of the BJP expressed support for the bandh, despite such actions being illegal at the time. State officials later prevented riot victims from leaving the refugee camps, and the camps were often unable to meet the needs of those living there. Muslim victims of the riots were subject to further discrimination when the state government announced that compensation for Muslim victims would be half of that offered to Hindus.

BUT THE SUPREME COURT ACQUITTED HIM, SO HE MUST BE FINE! Yes accepting donations from right-wing discriminatory violent nut jobs is a problem.



https://www.theatlantic.com/news/archive/2017/01/the-organization-that-sent-tulsi-gabbard-to-syria/514763/




Going to Assad, to shoot off talking point for the government, and meeting a leader that uses chemical warfare on it's citizens, without being president.

Going to Syria based upon anti-Semitic, dictatorial and fascist ba'thist party would be wrong yes.

Intel – I think the discussion  paints a completely ridiculous picture. The question isn’t if Modi or BJP is progressive, as I said they are center right party with some religious nutjobs. The question isn’t if progressives should look upon them favorably, there is nothing positive for progressives about right wing politicis with a flair for religious elements.

The riots were deplorable & I think there is data available in wiki too, but if anyone says it was used as ethnic cleansing, then it was a flat-out life. The riots started when 50-60 odd Hindu pilgrims were burned alive by a Muslim mob in a train, innocent Hindu pilgrims were burned alive. What followed was co-ordinated attacks against Muslim people by Hindu religious groups who massacred many Muslims. There was obviously some retaliation by Muslim group too against Hindus but they were outnumbered. In the end, as per wiki 790 Muslims & 254 Hindus died in religious clashes.

Modi was never accused of having any role in these riots as Chief Minister, instead the allegation was that he didn't involve the state apparatus to protect the vulnerable including Muslims, a charge proven false through multiple investigations. And every political party calls illegal strikes in India. Did Modi do his best? Probably not. Could another CM do a better job? Probably Yes, there was big failure for the state if such large scale riots happen. Should progressives like such politics - Hell No !

But it was not ethnic cleansing because Muslim religious groups came 1st & burned Hindus & then Hindu religious groups came & (sadly) massacred even more Muslims (with some retaliation from outnumbered Muslims !).

Painting the entire BJP as imperialistic & for ethnic cleansing is completely. There are millions & millions of BJP members, BJP won Muslim votes, have Muslims ministers & appointed a Muslim President too - Just to say if you receive donation from anyone tied to BJP makes you for ethnic cleansing is flat out ridiculous.

Intel - You dont' support imperialism etc if you make balanced criticism rather then exaggerated criticism.

I guess the left is now giving off a blow job to Modi since their favorite leader is far-right, nice to now.

I guess Indian Imperialism in Nepal, that pushed hundreds of thousands of people in Nepal, doesn't count, but continue.

8% of Muslims voted for the BJP, very big, most be proportional to the thoughts of the wider Muslim population!.

The riots were complicit in allowing Hindu mobs to kill Muslim people, and government forces engage in shoot-to-kill policies in Muslim neighborhoods.

[Shadows]

What exactly does qualify for progressiveness? Certification from the Clinton Campaign?

I'll tell you disqualifies: supporting (literally, with money) far-right Indian political parties that advocate for ethnic cleansing because of your personal religious views, and attacking Obama's foreign policy from the right because it is too lax for your tastes because "I was a soldier blah blah blah".

If the bulk of establishment Democratic politicians can be rendered neoliberal shills or whatever because of positions on a handful of issues specific to their constituencies (or not), then people like Gabbard certainly are disqualified from being called "progressive" by anybody intellectually and ideologically consistent. Except that so many of the pious are anything but: their definition of "progressive" hinges solely on whether a person supported Bernie or not, or was a perceived ally or foe in that broader struggle. Actual policies don't matter; it's a cult of personality above all else.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The first one there isn't necessarily the problem (though annoying as hell and negates any legitimate sense of political/ideological superiority these people have about themselves), but the latter two are dynamics where the Right gets it and they rule because of it.

I would like to know more about this Ethnic Cleansing group which Gabbard supported because that's just a flat untrue statement used to to smear her. What exactly did she say & how did she support ethnic cleansing groups ? (No-one deserves to be called a supporter of ethnic cleansing untruly !)

Here you go.

But the campaign here against Tulsi is flat out smear !

Supporting Indian Imperialism and right-wing policies for the subjugation of other countries, minority communities, sad, sad , sad. The government of gujurat was complicit in the riots in Gujurat,

"Summarising academic views on the subject, Martha Nussbaum said: "There is by now a broad consensus that the Gujarat violence was a form of ethnic cleansing, that in many ways it was premeditated, and that it was carried out with the complicity of the state government and officers of the law." The Modi government imposed a curfew in 26 major cities, issued shoot-at-sight orders and called for the army to patrol the streets.

The president of the state unit of the BJP expressed support for the bandh, despite such actions being illegal at the time. State officials later prevented riot victims from leaving the refugee camps, and the camps were often unable to meet the needs of those living there. Muslim victims of the riots were subject to further discrimination when the state government announced that compensation for Muslim victims would be half of that offered to Hindus.

BUT THE SUPREME COURT ACQUITTED HIM, SO HE MUST BE FINE! Yes accepting donations from right-wing discriminatory violent nut jobs is a problem.



https://www.theatlantic.com/news/archive/2017/01/the-organization-that-sent-tulsi-gabbard-to-syria/514763/




Going to Assad, to shoot off talking point for the government, and meeting a leader that uses chemical warfare on it's citizens, without being president.

Going to Syria based upon anti-Semitic, dictatorial and fascist ba'thist party would be wrong yes.

Intel – I think the discussion  paints a completely ridiculous picture. The question isn’t if Modi or BJP is progressive, as I said they are center right party with some religious nutjobs. The question isn’t if progressives should look upon them favorably, there is nothing positive for progressives about right wing politicis with a flair for religious elements.

The riots were deplorable & I think there is data available in wiki too, but if anyone says it was used as ethnic cleansing, then it was a flat-out life. The riots started when 50-60 odd Hindu pilgrims were burned alive by a Muslim mob in a train, innocent Hindu pilgrims were burned alive. What followed was co-ordinated attacks against Muslim people by Hindu religious groups who massacred many Muslims. There was obviously some retaliation by Muslim group too against Hindus but they were outnumbered. In the end, as per wiki 790 Muslims & 254 Hindus died in religious clashes.

Modi was never accused of having any role in these riots as Chief Minister, instead the allegation was that he didn't involve the state apparatus to protect the vulnerable including Muslims, a charge proven false through multiple investigations. And every political party calls illegal strikes in India. Did Modi do his best? Probably not. Could another CM do a better job? Probably Yes, there was big failure for the state if such large scale riots happen. Should progressives like such politics - Hell No !

But it was not ethnic cleansing because Muslim religious groups came 1st & burned Hindus & then Hindu religious groups came & (sadly) massacred even more Muslims (with some retaliation from outnumbered Muslims !).

Painting the entire BJP as imperialistic & for ethnic cleansing is completely. There are millions & millions of BJP members, BJP won Muslim votes, have Muslims ministers & appointed a Muslim President too - Just to say if you receive donation from anyone tied to BJP makes you for ethnic cleansing is flat out ridiculous.

Intel - You dont' support imperialism etc if you make balanced criticism rather then exaggerated criticism.

I guess the left is now giving off a blow job to Modi since their favorite leader is far-right, nice to now.

I guess Indian Imperialism in Nepal, that pushed hundreds of thousands of people in Nepal, doesn't count, but continue.

8% of Muslims voted for the BJP, very big, most be proportional to the thoughts of the wider Muslim population!.

The riots were complicit in allowing Hindu mobs to kill Muslim people, and government forces engage in shoot-to-kill policies in Muslim neighborhoods.

On the recent State elections in the International threads, BJP won a significant share of Muslims (much more than 8%) but I don't know exact stats & they did appoint Muslims to key positions including the President. They have too many religious nutjobs etc but Ethnic cleansers (of a party of millions of people & many pretty decent I think??) Really?

I already said how could 700 people die in riots (as per Wiki) if the government was competent? There are question marks over what the government did to stop the riots - You can surely blame the government for the riots happening. But the claim about government forces shooting Muslims here n there is flat out untrue, ridiculous & sensationalism.

Your statements are indeed very disappointing. I already said how can the left/progressives have any support for center-right politicians with religious nutjobs in them. But that doesn't mean you have to call them Nazis/Hitler/Ethnic Cleansers or otherwise you give 'em a BJ?

About Gabbard, attending any meeting/receiving donations etc from BJP Party people is not the ideal thing & you can criticize & that would be perfectly fair for progressives. But does that disqualify her for life from being a progressive? I thought Ellison was completely unfairly criticized for the Farrakhan thing. And if this disqualifies Gabbard from ever being a progressive, then frankly it is unfair !

[Intell]

What exactly does qualify for progressiveness? Certification from the Clinton Campaign?

I'll tell you disqualifies: supporting (literally, with money) far-right Indian political parties that advocate for ethnic cleansing because of your personal religious views, and attacking Obama's foreign policy from the right because it is too lax for your tastes because "I was a soldier blah blah blah".

If the bulk of establishment Democratic politicians can be rendered neoliberal shills or whatever because of positions on a handful of issues specific to their constituencies (or not), then people like Gabbard certainly are disqualified from being called "progressive" by anybody intellectually and ideologically consistent. Except that so many of the pious are anything but: their definition of "progressive" hinges solely on whether a person supported Bernie or not, or was a perceived ally or foe in that broader struggle. Actual policies don't matter; it's a cult of personality above all else.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The first one there isn't necessarily the problem (though annoying as hell and negates any legitimate sense of political/ideological superiority these people have about themselves), but the latter two are dynamics where the Right gets it and they rule because of it.

I would like to know more about this Ethnic Cleansing group which Gabbard supported because that's just a flat untrue statement used to to smear her. What exactly did she say & how did she support ethnic cleansing groups ? (No-one deserves to be called a supporter of ethnic cleansing untruly !)

Here you go.

But the campaign here against Tulsi is flat out smear !

Supporting Indian Imperialism and right-wing policies for the subjugation of other countries, minority communities, sad, sad , sad. The government of gujurat was complicit in the riots in Gujurat,

"Summarising academic views on the subject, Martha Nussbaum said: "There is by now a broad consensus that the Gujarat violence was a form of ethnic cleansing, that in many ways it was premeditated, and that it was carried out with the complicity of the state government and officers of the law." The Modi government imposed a curfew in 26 major cities, issued shoot-at-sight orders and called for the army to patrol the streets.

The president of the state unit of the BJP expressed support for the bandh, despite such actions being illegal at the time. State officials later prevented riot victims from leaving the refugee camps, and the camps were often unable to meet the needs of those living there. Muslim victims of the riots were subject to further discrimination when the state government announced that compensation for Muslim victims would be half of that offered to Hindus.

BUT THE SUPREME COURT ACQUITTED HIM, SO HE MUST BE FINE! Yes accepting donations from right-wing discriminatory violent nut jobs is a problem.



https://www.theatlantic.com/news/archive/2017/01/the-organization-that-sent-tulsi-gabbard-to-syria/514763/




Going to Assad, to shoot off talking point for the government, and meeting a leader that uses chemical warfare on it's citizens, without being president.

Going to Syria based upon anti-Semitic, dictatorial and fascist ba'thist party would be wrong yes.

Intel – I think the discussion  paints a completely ridiculous picture. The question isn’t if Modi or BJP is progressive, as I said they are center right party with some religious nutjobs. The question isn’t if progressives should look upon them favorably, there is nothing positive for progressives about right wing politicis with a flair for religious elements.

The riots were deplorable & I think there is data available in wiki too, but if anyone says it was used as ethnic cleansing, then it was a flat-out life. The riots started when 50-60 odd Hindu pilgrims were burned alive by a Muslim mob in a train, innocent Hindu pilgrims were burned alive. What followed was co-ordinated attacks against Muslim people by Hindu religious groups who massacred many Muslims. There was obviously some retaliation by Muslim group too against Hindus but they were outnumbered. In the end, as per wiki 790 Muslims & 254 Hindus died in religious clashes.

Modi was never accused of having any role in these riots as Chief Minister, instead the allegation was that he didn't involve the state apparatus to protect the vulnerable including Muslims, a charge proven false through multiple investigations. And every political party calls illegal strikes in India. Did Modi do his best? Probably not. Could another CM do a better job? Probably Yes, there was big failure for the state if such large scale riots happen. Should progressives like such politics - Hell No !

But it was not ethnic cleansing because Muslim religious groups came 1st & burned Hindus & then Hindu religious groups came & (sadly) massacred even more Muslims (with some retaliation from outnumbered Muslims !).

Painting the entire BJP as imperialistic & for ethnic cleansing is completely. There are millions & millions of BJP members, BJP won Muslim votes, have Muslims ministers & appointed a Muslim President too - Just to say if you receive donation from anyone tied to BJP makes you for ethnic cleansing is flat out ridiculous.

Intel - You dont' support imperialism etc if you make balanced criticism rather then exaggerated criticism.

I guess the left is now giving off a blow job to Modi since their favorite leader is far-right, nice to now.

I guess Indian Imperialism in Nepal, that pushed hundreds of thousands of people in Nepal, doesn't count, but continue.

8% of Muslims voted for the BJP, very big, most be proportional to the thoughts of the wider Muslim population!.

The riots were complicit in allowing Hindu mobs to kill Muslim people, and government forces engage in shoot-to-kill policies in Muslim neighborhoods.

Dude, I don't know about "Imperialism in Nepal" so I wont' comment. On the recent State elections in the International threads, BJP won a significant share of Muslims (much more than 8%) but I don't exact stats.

I already said how could 700 people die in riots (as per Wiki) if the government was competent? So there are question marks over what the government did to stop the riots - You can surely blame the government for the riots happening.

But the claim about government forces shooting Muslims here n there is flat out untrue, ridiculous & sensationalism.

Your statements are indeed very disappointing. I already said how can the left/progressives have any support for center-right politicians with religious nutjobs in them. But that doesn't mean you have to call them Nazis/Hitler/Ethnic Cleanser otherwise you give 'em a BJ?

About Gabbard, attending any meeting/receive donations etc from BJP Party people is not the correct thing. But does that disqualify her form being a progressive?

I thought Ellison was completely unfairly criticized for the Farrakhan thing. And if this disqualifies Gabbard from ever being a progressive, then frankly it is unfair !

Gabbard has a continual history of such a thing, and voted for a bill that cleansed Modi of his atrocious actions in Gujurat.

Gabbard has continual history of donations from BJP donors, meeting with his like of leaders, and excusing it.

"There is by now a broad consensus that the Gujarat violence was a form of ethnic cleansing, that in many ways it was premeditated, and that it was carried out with the complicity of the state government and officers of the law."

The police and government led rioters of muslim-majority neighbourhoods.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naroda_Patiya_massacre


Supported by various top officials.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulbarg_Society_massacre

Let us not forget that she went to Syria with the support based upon fascist and anti-Semitic party. She voted for bills that excused war crimes of the Assad Regime.

If such vile policies was carried out, it would not be excused, but now the left excuses her links to the far-right because she's become a godess, once she endorsed Sanders.

[Shadows]

What exactly does qualify for progressiveness? Certification from the Clinton Campaign?

I'll tell you disqualifies: supporting (literally, with money) far-right Indian political parties that advocate for ethnic cleansing because of your personal religious views, and attacking Obama's foreign policy from the right because it is too lax for your tastes because "I was a soldier blah blah blah".

If the bulk of establishment Democratic politicians can be rendered neoliberal shills or whatever because of positions on a handful of issues specific to their constituencies (or not), then people like Gabbard certainly are disqualified from being called "progressive" by anybody intellectually and ideologically consistent. Except that so many of the pious are anything but: their definition of "progressive" hinges solely on whether a person supported Bernie or not, or was a perceived ally or foe in that broader struggle. Actual policies don't matter; it's a cult of personality above all else.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Here you go.

But the campaign here against Tulsi is flat out smear !

Supporting Indian Imperialism and right-wing policies for the subjugation of other countries, minority communities, sad, sad , sad. The government of gujurat was complicit in the riots in Gujurat,






https://www.theatlantic.com/news/archive/2017/01/the-organization-that-sent-tulsi-gabbard-to-syria/514763/




Going to Assad, to shoot off talking point for the government, and meeting a leader that uses chemical warfare on it's citizens, without being president.

Going to Syria based upon anti-Semitic, dictatorial and fascist ba'thist party would be wrong yes.

Intel - You dont' support imperialism etc if you make balanced criticism rather then exaggerated criticism.

I guess the left is now giving off a blow job to Modi since their favorite leader is far-right, nice to now.

I guess Indian Imperialism in Nepal, that pushed hundreds of thousands of people in Nepal, doesn't count, but continue.

8% of Muslims voted for the BJP, very big, most be proportional to the thoughts of the wider Muslim population!.

The riots were complicit in allowing Hindu mobs to kill Muslim people, and government forces engage in shoot-to-kill policies in Muslim neighborhoods.

Dude, I don't know about "Imperialism in Nepal" so I wont' comment. On the recent State elections in the International threads, BJP won a significant share of Muslims (much more than 8%) but I don't exact stats.

I already said how could 700 people die in riots (as per Wiki) if the government was competent? So there are question marks over what the government did to stop the riots - You can surely blame the government for the riots happening.

But the claim about government forces shooting Muslims here n there is flat out untrue, ridiculous & sensationalism.

Your statements are indeed very disappointing. I already said how can the left/progressives have any support for center-right politicians with religious nutjobs in them. But that doesn't mean you have to call them Nazis/Hitler/Ethnic Cleanser otherwise you give 'em a BJ?

About Gabbard, attending any meeting/receive donations etc from BJP Party people is not the correct thing. But does that disqualify her form being a progressive?

I thought Ellison was completely unfairly criticized for the Farrakhan thing. And if this disqualifies Gabbard from ever being a progressive, then frankly it is unfair !

Gabbard has a continual history of such a thing, and voted for a bill that cleansed Modi of his atrocious actions in Gujurat.

Gabbard has continual history of donations from BJP donors, meeting with his like of leaders, and excusing it.

"There is by now a broad consensus that the Gujarat violence was a form of ethnic cleansing, that in many ways it was premeditated, and that it was carried out with the complicity of the state government and officers of the law."

The police and government led rioters of muslim-majority neighbourhoods.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naroda_Patiya_massacre


Supported by various top officials.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulbarg_Society_massacre

Let us not forget that she went to Syria with the support based upon fascist and anti-Semitic party. She voted for bills that excused war crimes of the Assad Regime.

If such vile policies was carried out, it would not be excused, but now the left excuses her links to the far-right because she's become a godess, once she endorsed Sanders.

Final Post regarding this Gabbard thing which is derailing this thread & should end

Intel, I have read your links - In one of your links it said any allegations about government officials involvement were proven false through multiple Investigation teams not just in Gujrat but Federally & through Court & including teams teamed by the party opposing Modi. Fringe Hindu groups (some involved with the BJP & that's condemn-able) massacred many Muslims when Muslim mobs 1st burned many Hindus & Modi didn't do a good job protecting Muslims. There is no consensus about "Ethnic Cleansing" & that's IMO that's completely untrue (That doesn't mean you can't condemn killings of Muslims by Fringe Hindu groups some by lower level BJP workers).

I have already replied about the House bill where Gabbard IMO did 100% the right thing, a House bill revoking Gujrat & criticizing Modi/BJP indirectly/directly 10-20 days before country wide elections where the BJP was expected to come to power & 10-12 years after the Gujrat riots was flat out trying to influence foreign elections which everyone should condemn.

I have already criticized Gabbard that as progressives she shouldn't go near the center-right BJP people (or receive donations). i believe you can hold the BJP/Modi in overall as a negative right wing religious party without mis-characterizing them as Nazis/Ethnic cleansers etc !

I will end this Gabbard thing here agreeing to disagree with you - I don't think it disqualifies her as a progressive & neither did I like the Farrakhan criticism against Ellison. Cheers - Let's move on!

[OSR stands with Israel]

What exactly does qualify for progressiveness? Certification from the Clinton Campaign?

I'll tell you disqualifies: supporting (literally, with money) far-right Indian political parties that advocate for ethnic cleansing because of your personal religious views, and attacking Obama's foreign policy from the right because it is too lax for your tastes because "I was a soldier blah blah blah".

If the bulk of establishment Democratic politicians can be rendered neoliberal shills or whatever because of positions on a handful of issues specific to their constituencies (or not), then people like Gabbard certainly are disqualified from being called "progressive" by anybody intellectually and ideologically consistent. Except that so many of the pious are anything but: their definition of "progressive" hinges solely on whether a person supported Bernie or not, or was a perceived ally or foe in that broader struggle. Actual policies don't matter; it's a cult of personality above all else.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is just another example of why "the Left" in America is a joke and a disorganized MESS and will never accomplish anything meaningful in its current incarnation. I pray for the day that that changes, I really do, considering that I am ideologically there 100%...but the broader movement in the present day is filled with low-information hypocrites, niche organizers who are so obsessed with their own little fiefdoms that they miss the bigger picture of political intersectionality, and a bunch of effete urban kids and worn-out hippies that eschew the power of institutional control.

The first one there isn't necessarily the problem (though annoying as hell and negates any legitimate sense of political/ideological superiority these people have about themselves), but the latter two are dynamics where the Right gets it and they rule because of it.

I would like to know more about this Ethnic Cleansing group which Gabbard supported because that's just a flat untrue statement used to to smear her. What exactly did she say & how did she support ethnic cleansing groups ? (No-one deserves to be called a supporter of ethnic cleansing untruly !)

Here you go.

The BJP is known as a Center Right party & has some fringe religious nutjob elements but is a democratic political party (Ethnic Cleansing seriously ??) It is infact currently in power & had actually appointed a Muslim as the President years ago. If you go to the International Elections thread, you will see the BJP is winning the Muslim vote in recent state elections. Just to add the current PM who is known as a right wing guy took strong opposition to Trump's call for barring Muslims & said Islam shouldn't be directly linked to terrorism. If you want to pick a few fringe elements of a main-stream Center-Right party & paint the entire party as nutjobs, that is wrong.

Secondly, there is nothing wrong in Tulsi's stand - The House Bill was ridiculous & was introduced more than 10 years after some Indian riots in the PM's home state, suddenly before a country wide elections where the BJP was expected to win & there was no religious riots happening then (totally irrelevant issue to bring up & meant to influence votes). The PM was acquitted by multiple courts on any role in the religious riots which took place 10-12-15 years ago !What exactly is Gabbard's fault - Asking US to not try to influence foreign elections or receiving Individual campaign donations from people who maybe are religious non-violent nutjobs or posing for picture with some person who makes a stupid religious tweet months or years later?

Then there are so many inaccuracies in the entire post like saying the PM moving India closer to the "Zionist Evil Israel" ! Well the PM also moved India closer diplomatically to both Iran & Saudi Arabia & many other Muslim nations! Also about Tulsi vs Obama about cause of extremism, I think that Poverty alone is not the key factor (Radical religious outlook is there too) but poverty helps in recruiting foot soldiers. So I don't 100% agree with Tulsi there but that makes her not a progressive ?

But the campaign here against Tulsi is flat out smear !

Supporting Indian Imperialism and right-wing policies for the subjugation of other countries, minority communities, sad, sad , sad. The government of gujurat was complicit in the riots in Gujurat,

"Summarising academic views on the subject, Martha Nussbaum said: "There is by now a broad consensus that the Gujarat violence was a form of ethnic cleansing, that in many ways it was premeditated, and that it was carried out with the complicity of the state government and officers of the law." The Modi government imposed a curfew in 26 major cities, issued shoot-at-sight orders and called for the army to patrol the streets.

The president of the state unit of the BJP expressed support for the bandh, despite such actions being illegal at the time. State officials later prevented riot victims from leaving the refugee camps, and the camps were often unable to meet the needs of those living there. Muslim victims of the riots were subject to further discrimination when the state government announced that compensation for Muslim victims would be half of that offered to Hindus.

BUT THE SUPREME COURT ACQUITTED HIM, SO HE MUST BE FINE! Yes accepting donations from right-wing discriminatory violent nut jobs is a problem.



https://www.theatlantic.com/news/archive/2017/01/the-organization-that-sent-tulsi-gabbard-to-syria/514763/




Going to Assad, to shoot off talking point for the government, and meeting a leader that uses chemical warfare on it's citizens, without being president.

Going to Syria based upon anti-Semitic, dictatorial and fascist ba'thist party would be wrong yes.

modi is not part of the fringe wing of the bjp(which is bad), he is more part of the mainstream wing of the bjp, just like how Marco Rubio is not a Tea Party republican but a Mainstream Republican. Also how does shaking hands with modi equal supporting him.

Gee, if tacitly approving of ethnic cleansing is 'moderate' how extreme is the fringe?

no he doesnt

Yet he is complicit in his administration in it. Gujarat is also not the beacon of progress, and in many cases more flawed than other states.

no he isnt the courts said he had nothing to do with it and the courts in India are much more favorable to the INC then BJP. Gujarat I believe had one of the best economic record when he was CM of the state.

Anyway just cause Gabbard shook hands with modi doesnt mean she supports him.

[Blackacre]

AYO LETS TALK ABOUT MANCHIN

Ive actually been wondering something. Given how much he disagrees with the national Democratic Party, has he been approached by republicans about a party switch? Would he be receptive to it?

[Virginiá]

Gents -

Not that this argument about Gabbard isn't exhilarating, but one thing I might ask is if you guys could please trim down those quotes, especially to stop quoting the same images over and over again. I mean this quote chain is massive now and it's blowing up the entire page because of it.

If not, then please take this to another thread.

[Anna Komnene]

AYO LETS TALK ABOUT MANCHIN

Ive actually been wondering something. Given how much he disagrees with the national Democratic Party, has he been approached by republicans about a party switch? Would he be receptive to it?

There was some speculation about it last year that he might switch but apparently he had this to say about that:  "I'm a born in the wool WV Democrat.  I don't know where they're getting that crap from."  I'm not sure what that means, but I'll take him at his word. 

[136or142]

If Manchin was primaried and lost the Democratic nomination I don't know what the results would be in the general election, however, I absolutely think it's worthwhile to primary Manchin, if for no other reason than he's a sleazebag a--hole.

The issues I would go after him with would be his endorsement of Donald Trump in the election (I don't know if he officially endorsed Trump but he didn't endorse Hillary Clinton and he certainly De Facto endorsed Trump.)

This has led to the loss of health care subsidies for West Virginia voters and all for the lie that the historic coal industry can somehow be brought back and the jobs with it.



Senator Manchin decided to play short term politics in 2016 rather than look at the long term, and he should be removed from the U.S Senate if for no other reason than he's too stupid to be a U.S Senator.

[CapoteMonster]

If Manchin was primaried and lost the Democratic nomination I don't know what the results would be in the general election, however, I absolutely think it's worthwhile to primary Manchin, if for no other reason than he's a sleazebag a--hole.

The issues I would go after him with would be his endorsement of Donald Trump in the election (I don't know if he officially endorsed Trump but he didn't endorse Hillary Clinton and he certainly De Facto endorsed Trump.)

This has led to the loss of health care subsidies for West Virginia voters and all for the lie that the historic coal industry can somehow be brought back and the jobs with it.



Senator Manchin decided to play short term politics in 2016 rather than look at the long term, and he should be removed from the U.S Senate if for no other reason than he's too stupid to be a U.S Senator.

Manchin said he voted for Clinton. He just won't admit whether he voted for Obama in 2012 or not.

[Blackacre]

Oh gosh I hope Joe Manchin gets primaried so hard by someone from the communist left. PLEASE SOMEONE RUN AGAINST JOE MANCHIN IN THE DEM PRIMARY, I BEG OF YOU. Let inevitable Senator Evan Jenkins take his seat a little early.

That's a pretty good argument to leave Joe Manchin alone

[136or142]

Oh gosh I hope Joe Manchin gets primaried so hard by someone from the communist left. PLEASE SOMEONE RUN AGAINST JOE MANCHIN IN THE DEM PRIMARY, I BEG OF YOU. Let inevitable Senator Evan Jenkins take his seat a little early.

Is Evan Jenkins from the fascist right?

[ProgressiveCanadian]

Is everyone on this forum in the Establishment bubble? It's going to be a joy to watch the bubble pop when actual Americans go out to vote.

[SWE]

Oh gosh I hope Joe Manchin gets primaried so hard by someone from the communist left. PLEASE SOMEONE RUN AGAINST JOE MANCHIN IN THE DEM PRIMARY, I BEG OF YOU. Let inevitable Senator Evan Jenkins take his seat a little early.

Is Evan Jenkins from the fascist right?

Nope, he is just conservative.

ie yes