538: Liberals Would Be Foolish To Primary Joe Manchin

[Blackacre]

Yeah, Dems are best off keeping Manchin where he is and focusing primary efforts elsewhere. CA and DE and NJ are good options. Let Manchin be Manchin

[Adam Griffin]

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

Did I see a substantially non-white crowd of maybe 150 people in a high school in a 90% white county? Yeah, I did. Please stop acting like there is some sort of massive organic enthusiasm in WV for True Leftism, let alone in McDowell County. In the spirit of the typical Bernie event, I'd bet good money that a substantial chunk of people in the audience weren't even locals.

[MAINEiac4434]

I wish people would understand that probably 90% of Sanders-Trump voters also would've been Sanders-Trump voters in a Sanders-Trump general.

[Adam Griffin]

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.

[RI]

Did I see a substantially non-white crowd of maybe 150 people in a high school in a 90% white county? Yeah, I did. Please stop acting like there is some sort of massive organic enthusiasm in WV for True Leftism, let alone in McDowell County. In the spirit of the typical Bernie event, I'd bet good money that a substantial chunk of people in the audience weren't even locals.

Keystone, WV in McDowell County is actually 65% Black.

[Adam Griffin]

Did I see a substantially non-white crowd of maybe 150 people in a high school in a 90% white county? Yeah, I did. Please stop acting like there is some sort of massive organic enthusiasm in WV for True Leftism, let alone in McDowell County. In the spirit of the typical Bernie event, I'd bet good money that a substantial chunk of people in the audience weren't even locals.

Keystone, WV in McDowell County is actually 65% Black.

Well, yeah...but I'm not sure how that's necessarily relevant? Keystone's like 1% of the county's population and the town hall was several miles away. FWIW I'm familiar with McDowell's history of black miners and the like, but it's nowhere nearly as black as it was.

I'm also willing to accept that the audience was likely less diverse than what we saw in most shots of the debate: even in a place like McDowell, MSNBC had to make sure to promote a multicultural vibe by putting several Latinos, Muslims, etc directly behind Bernie and then presumably rotating panning to every non-white member of the audience, because a lot of the individual close-up shots were on non-whites.

Much to jfern's chagrin, his theory about massive True Leftist support is busted in either case, whether I'm right or wrong. If I'm right, then a lot of people in the audience weren't from there and drove to be at the event. If I'm wrong, then it makes sense that the audience would be so diverse; if (national) Democrats are down to like 20% of the population there, then a very substantial share of the Democratic coalition would be non-white even in a place like that.

[Figueira]

The Manchin team is purposefully engineering a primary for the reasons that have been alluded to above, and "the Left" - in its classic incompetent and unorganized form - is playing right into their hands. It's like waving a red flag at a bull; they can't help themselves. His staff leaked that audio on purpose from a few weeks back where Manchin encouraged the left to primary him and I'm sure a whole lot more is going on right now too.

So here's how it plays out: some no-name (likely a non-WV native) will declare and make general overtures to progressives, maybe hire a couple of no-name staffers once donations begin flowing. The Green Web will whip itself into a frenzy and begin raising money - with practically none of it coming from WV - and before you know it, this person will have a million or two in small contributions. Manchin will happily go to every candidate forum, every debate and engage with the opponent at every turn. His opponent will have a better grassroots campaign structure than Manchin, more canvassers, and possibly more money on top of that. In the end, Manchin wins the primary by 40 points, and proceeds to the general election with most of his ad budget focused on replaying all of those Sister Soulja moments he had during the primary and talking about how he stands up to extremism no matter which side of the aisle it's on.

Then we'll get to hear how Manchin won 3-to-1 only because the system is rigged and MUH CLOSED PRIMARIES.



Those who are fond of labels like "True/Real/Bold Progressives" need to accept that their beliefs are not viable in every state of the country - nor even in every state's Democratic electorate. There are still heaps of Democrats who consciously, directly and overtly prefer moderate and even conservative Democrats: they just can't seem to accept this. To them, it must just be because they're "uninformed" or "need to do their research" or whatever.

They also need to learn how to pick their fights and not be baited so easily. It honestly wouldn't surprise me if more Democrats start engineering themselves to be primaried for brownie points in tougher districts/states. And these irate types will continue to fall for it hook, line and sinker, wasting their time, energy, money and anger on this rather than doing something productive to make left-of-center politics more viable in this country.

It also wouldn't hurt for them to not associate the word "progressive" with "someone who supported the candidate I supported in the primary". Really embarrassing to see people claim that Tulsi Gabbard and Jeff Merkley are True Progressives or whatever.

I agree with this, except Jeff Merkley is a progressive. Unless you were just pointing out that he isn't a progressive solely because he endorsed Sanders, in which case I agree.

[InheritTheWind]

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.  

[Virginiá]

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.

One of jfern's most liberal qualities is his very liberal use of the term "neoliberal."  It's basically how he brands any politician that doesn't adhere to all his policy preferences, or if he simply doesn't like the politician, at which point he'll most likely just invent some new reason for calling them a neoliberal.

[InheritTheWind]

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.

One of jfern's most liberal qualities is his very liberal use of the term "neoliberal."  It's basically how he brands any politician that doesn't adhere to all his policy preferences, or if he simply doesn't like the politician, at which point he'll most likely just invent some new reason for calling them a neoliberal.

Well I'm a tad new here, so thanks for the heads up

[LabourJersey]

Personally I do think that genuine leftist economic policy would play in areas like West Virginia--history points to so many examples of this. However, I think leftists deeply under-estimate how deeply intertwined center-left economic policies are with social liberalism/cosmopolitanism in modern America, and how many people feel deeply opposed to social liberalism at its core.

[Thank you for being a friend...]

Joe's fine.  He represents West Virginia.

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

If there were a viable WV Prog bench from which someone could emerge to primary Manchin, I would be all for it. 

Sure, Manchin represents WV. Vote for guns and coal all you want.

But breaking ranks on procedural votes - cabinet appointments that leadership doesn't like, SCOTUS nominees, etc - I find completely unacceptable.

Unfortunately, since the Dems in WV are under so much pressure, I don't think there's anyone viable to primary Manchin and go on to win the general.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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.

One of jfern's most liberal qualities is his very liberal use of the term "neoliberal."  It's basically how he brands any politician that doesn't adhere to all his policy preferences, or if he simply doesn't like the politician, at which point he'll most likely just invent some new reason for calling them a neoliberal.

You act like I'm some sort of purity troll. Nope. I vote for candidates I have plenty of disagreements with. But not ones I disagree with on most of the issues.

[Heisenberg]

If there were a viable WV Prog bench from which someone could emerge to primary Manchin, I would be all for it. 

Sure, Manchin represents WV. Vote for guns and coal all you want.

But breaking ranks on procedural votes - cabinet appointments that leadership doesn't like, SCOTUS nominees, etc - I find completely unacceptable.

Unfortunately, since the Dems in WV are under so much pressure, I don't think there's anyone viable to primary Manchin and go on to win the general.

Not sure why the judicial part was included. Most West Virginians would prefer Trump judges over Obama judges, I'm sure. Manchin seems far more likely to support Gorsuch than Collins or even Murkowski, and he is to their right on things like Planned Parenthood.

[Virginiá]

You act like I'm some sort of purity troll. Nope. I vote for candidates I have plenty of disagreements with. But not ones I disagree with on most of the issues.

No, that's not true. You're definitely not a troll.

[Dr. MB]

Nope. Manchin has to stay, even if he's your least favorite Democratic Senator.

Realize that a Bernie-style candidate that is very socially liberal won't win in West Virginia. Ever. If Joe goes, the last Democratic Senator from West Virginia for a long time goes.

[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 !)

[Adam Griffin]

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.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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.

Look at who seems to be close to the leader of that party.

[Adam Griffin]

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.

Look at who seems to be close to the leader of that party.

God forbid one head of state be seen or interact with another! What's Gabbard's excuse for associating with both him and the party?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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.

Look at who seems to be close to the leader of that party.

God forbid one head of state be seen or interact with another! What's Gabbard's excuse for associating with both him and the party?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://medium.com/@Harihar/rep-tulsi-gabbard-on-islam-vs-islamism-c87b1ceefb1#.1dbn8e6c2

[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 !

[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.

[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 is a complete failure and 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. The problem with that is that the establishment is the establishment, and it's the establishment for a reason: it does all of those things better.