Serious 2020 Democratic Primary Thread

[DetroitLolcat]

I think a lot of Gabbard fans have their hearts in the right place, but don't understand the difference between a leftist foreign policy and a far-right/paleoconservative foreign policy. Both are usually anti-interventionist, but a leftist wants what's best for humanity regardless of its effect on the status of an individual nation while a paleocon's anti-interventionism is rooted in nationalism. Gabbard's foreign policy is extremely rooted in nationalism and Islamophobia.

Her record on diplomacy isn't any good. There's a difference between negotiating with dictators in order to avoid war and kowtowing to them. If a U.S. president wanted to negotiate with madmen in order to prevent nuclear proliferation, that's a good thing. Obama, as hawkish as he was at times, recognized the value of diplomacy with the Iran deal. Compare that to Donald Trump, whose negotiations with Kim Jong-Un have accomplished nothing. Trump even spouts Kim's party line and denies the human rights violations committed by Kim's regime. Ultimately, Obama's Iran deal improved the standard of living in Iran by eliminating sanctions and made the world safer by preventing Iran from obtaining a nuke. Trump, on the other hand, simply denies the reality of Kim's nuclear program as well as his human rights violations, preferring to score cheap political points and looking like a diplomat. When it came to legitimate diplomacy, Trump revoked Obama's Iran deal and re-instituted sanctions. No leftist would ever accuse Trump of having a leftist foreign policy.

Tulsi Gabbard is much closer to Trump than Obama in this respect. Tulsi Gabbard's meeting with Assad ended up with her spreading falsehoods and conspiracy theories about Assad gassing his own people. It ended with no signal from Assad that he would raise the standard of living in his country or prevent nuclear proliferation. Her meetings with Assad are as hollow and dangerous as Trump's meetings with Kim. Meanwhile, Tulsi Gabbard regularly went on Fox News to scaremonger about the Iran deal and criticized Obama for not being tough enough on "radical Islamic terror", a far-right dog whistle. And remember: Gabbard's trip to Syria to meet with Assad was literally drawn up by a far-right Syrian fascist party.

Gabbard is also a self-described war hawk. She said it herself: “when it comes to the war against terrorists, I’m a hawk. When it comes to counterproductive wars of regime change, I’m a dove." She supports expanding drone strikes in the Middle East, has praised Egypt - less than one year after their dictator slaughtered over 1,200 protesters - for taking the fight to "extremist Islam". Tulsi Gabbard is not a peacenik, she just prefers brutal secular dictators to brutal Islamic ones because she is an enormous Islamophobe. Look at her quote here:

“The contrast between our society and those in the Middle East made me realize that the difference—the reason those societies are so oppressive—is that they are essentially theocracies where the government and government leaders wield the power to both define and then enforce ‘morality.’”

The worst offenders in the Middle East - from Saddam Hussein to Bashar Al-Assad - have been largely secular. Gabbard's Islamophobia doesn't stop there, either. In 2015 she spoke at Christians United for Israel (That sure sounds like something a leftist would speak at...), a conference set up by Islamophobe (and - sorry for Godwin's law - Hitler praiser!) John Hagee. Hagee is a far-right evangelical wacko who explicitly says there is no such thing as moderate Islam because all Muslims are commanded to kill Christians and Jews. Given the company she keeps, no wonder Gabbard also supported the SAFE act which would have all but banned Syrian refugees from the US!

Tulsi Gabbard is the preferred candidate of David Duke and Steve Bannon, and it was Bannon who organized a Gabbard-Trump meeting shortly after his election. That's because Tulsi Gabbard's foreign policy is the same as Bannon's and her views on brown people are similar to Duke's. It's lip service to peace rooted in nationalism and Islamophobia. It's rooted in the idea that Americans shouldn't be engaging in wars to oppress Muslims throughout the world, we should be propping up dictators in the Middle East to do it for us. And don't even get me started on her adoration for Indian PM Modi, who isn't exactly the biggest fan of Islam in the world.

Tulsi Gabbard is Pat Buchanan in a lei. She's Steve Bannon who supports Medicare for All. Stop falling for her tricks.

 

[MikeDawg]

A couple days ago, Bernie got a chance to flex his incredible civil rights record. Between this and his recent statements on civil rights issues, he'll wrangle the minorities in no time!

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1103131961508487168

 

[THE_IRON_...KENYAN?]

Who else is on the Andrew Yang train

Give me a like if you are on the Yang Gang

 

[termi]

A couple days ago, Bernie got a chance to flex his incredible civil rights record. Between this and his recent statements on civil rights issues, he'll wrangle the minorities in no time!

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1103131961508487168

remember when u had hillary "superpredators" clinton as ur avi unironically like a month ago. do u really give a shit about black people or are u only cynically using their struggle for social justice as a stick to beat people to the left of u with

 

[MikeDawg]

remember when u had hillary "superpredators" clinton as ur avi unironically like a month ago

It's not my fault you didn't pick up on the irony.

 

[Chou Toshio]

I think a lot of Gabbard fans have their hearts in the right place, but don't understand the difference between a leftist foreign policy and a far-right/paleoconservative foreign policy. Both are usually anti-interventionist, but a leftist wants what's best for humanity regardless of its effect on the status of an individual nation while a paleocon's anti-interventionism is rooted in nationalism. Gabbard's foreign policy is extremely rooted in nationalism and Islamophobia.

Her record on diplomacy isn't any good. There's a difference between negotiating with dictators in order to avoid war and kowtowing to them. If a U.S. president wanted to negotiate with madmen in order to prevent nuclear proliferation, that's a good thing. Obama, as hawkish as he was at times, recognized the value of diplomacy with the Iran deal. Compare that to Donald Trump, whose negotiations with Kim Jong-Un have accomplished nothing. Trump even spouts Kim's party line and denies the human rights violations committed by Kim's regime. Ultimately, Obama's Iran deal improved the standard of living in Iran by eliminating sanctions and made the world safer by preventing Iran from obtaining a nuke. Trump, on the other hand, simply denies the reality of Kim's nuclear program as well as his human rights violations, preferring to score cheap political points and looking like a diplomat. When it came to legitimate diplomacy, Trump revoked Obama's Iran deal and re-instituted sanctions. No leftist would ever accuse Trump of having a leftist foreign policy.

Tulsi Gabbard is much closer to Trump than Obama in this respect. Tulsi Gabbard's meeting with Assad ended up with her spreading falsehoods and conspiracy theories about Assad gassing his own people. It ended with no signal from Assad that he would raise the standard of living in his country or prevent nuclear proliferation. Her meetings with Assad are as hollow and dangerous as Trump's meetings with Kim. Meanwhile, Tulsi Gabbard regularly went on Fox News to scaremonger about the Iran deal and criticized Obama for not being tough enough on "radical Islamic terror", a far-right dog whistle. And remember: Gabbard's trip to Syria to meet with Assad was literally drawn up by a far-right Syrian fascist party.

Gabbard is also a self-described war hawk. She said it herself: “when it comes to the war against terrorists, I’m a hawk. When it comes to counterproductive wars of regime change, I’m a dove." She supports expanding drone strikes in the Middle East, has praised Egypt - less than one year after their dictator slaughtered over 1,200 protesters - for taking the fight to "extremist Islam". Tulsi Gabbard is not a peacenik, she just prefers brutal secular dictators to brutal Islamic ones because she is an enormous Islamophobe. Look at her quote here:



The worst offenders in the Middle East - from Saddam Hussein to Bashar Al-Assad - have been largely secular. Gabbard's Islamophobia doesn't stop there, either. In 2015 she spoke at Christians United for Israel (That sure sounds like something a leftist would speak at...), a conference set up by Islamophobe (and - sorry for Godwin's law - Hitler praiser!) John Hagee. Hagee is a far-right evangelical wacko who explicitly says there is no such thing as moderate Islam because all Muslims are commanded to kill Christians and Jews. Given the company she keeps, no wonder Gabbard also supported the SAFE act which would have all but banned Syrian refugees from the US!

Tulsi Gabbard is the preferred candidate of David Duke and Steve Bannon, and it was Bannon who organized a Gabbard-Trump meeting shortly after his election. That's because Tulsi Gabbard's foreign policy is the same as Bannon's and her views on brown people are similar to Duke's. It's lip service to peace rooted in nationalism and Islamophobia. It's rooted in the idea that Americans shouldn't be engaging in wars to oppress Muslims throughout the world, we should be propping up dictators in the Middle East to do it for us. And don't even get me started on her adoration for Indian PM Modi, who isn't exactly the biggest fan of Islam in the world.

Tulsi Gabbard is Pat Buchanan in a lei. She's Steve Bannon who supports Medicare for All. Stop falling for her tricks.

I understand the difference between leftist and paleocon foreign policy— it’s more like it’s just extremely difficult to track records to that level of detail given time and attention in a day; how much is rumor, how much is real. I’ll definitely be trying to look into it more if time allows.

But knowing what I do know about her at the level of detail I’ve been able to track...

...what’s easy to point out is that she’s definitely not taking the best route to serve her own interests. At the end of the day, she’s really got almost no chance of winning, and yet she’s making the biggest enemies for herself. It was the same thing in 2016 when she endorsed Bernie— the citizenry stands to gain more from her actions than she does. BERNIE stands to gain a lot more from her candidacy than she does, because her pressing the issue of regime change wars will draw a clear line in the sand between him and those pretending to be him.

Whether she really is in her heart of hearts a progressive or a paleocon, in either of those doctrines it is possible to be genuinely working to serve the interests of your constituents in a Democracy— and just by doing that would make you better than the majority of the field.

Most on the left are not anarchosyndicalysts or other types of anarchist believers. As long as the left is most strongly made of social Democrats and Democratic Socialists, either way you are working in an ideology that believes in sovereign democratic nation states— states that have citizens that are the primary beneficiaries and owners of the society, and to whom their elected officials are accountable to represent.

 

[Sam]

remember when u had hillary "superpredators" clinton as ur avi unironically like a month ago. do u really give a shit about black people or are u only cynically using their struggle for social justice as a stick to beat people to the left of u with

But yes, Hillary mentioned superpredators and it was a stupid and offensive thing to say. But she also has a history with the black community and generally received their support. I'm not black and I'm not here to say all black people support Clinton, but she did seem to be perceived as an ally and has the actions to back it up.

Meanwhile, Bernie is trying to use his attendance of a sit-in in the 60s and "support" of Rev Jackson in the 80s as some kind of evidence of his overwhelming outreach with the black community.

In the past few years he's also: had trouble understanding that the majority of all drug dealers are not black, that people uncomfortable for a black politician aren't racist, and tries to separate black and other minority issues from "bread-and-butter" issues.

He's not the worst but if he's trying to sell himself as someone with a strong record of supporting black issues he was either woefully under-prepared or does not have a strong record.

 

[Chou Toshio]

You don’t need to outrun the bear, you only have to outrun the slower guy. xD

 

[orch]

I wanted an economic Democrat to run and we got the antihumanist-humanist sinophile candidate. Bernie is a joke compared to this guy.

#yanggang

 

[Chou Toshio]

I wanted an economic Democrat to run and we got the antihumanist-humanist sinophile candidate. Bernie is a joke compared to this guy.

#yanggang

Yang would be near my ideal candidate in an ideally functioning government, but that's definitely not what we got. Yang's got a great head on his shoulders, a great grasp of the economic situation, and good ideas-- but is completely lacking in enmity to the establishment; seems super naive about how corrupt the Dems are. If he's not going to flip the table on Pelosi and schumer and play hard ball on the campaign trail primarying his own party then he's not going to get any of his ideas done.

 

[orch]

Yang would be near my ideal candidate in an ideally functioning government, but that's definitely not what we got. Yang's got a great head on his shoulders, a great grasp of the economic situation, and good ideas-- but is completely lacking in enmity to the establishment; seems super naive about how corrupt the Dems are. If he's not going to flip the table on Pelosi and schumer and play hard ball on the campaign trail primarying his own party then he's not going to get any of his ideas done.

Yang is already using Trumpist tactics. Trumpism blew apart the republican primaries. There's no other democratic candidate with any modicum of a spine, so Trumpism should be very effective here. The best thing that #yanggang can do is to continue marketing Yang and get him on the ballots.

 

[Myzozoa]

As long as the left is most strongly made of social Democrats and Democratic Socialists, either way you are working in an ideology that believes in sovereign democratic nation states— states that have citizens that are the primary beneficiaries and owners of the society, and to whom their elected officials are accountable to represent.

In bold is the basic tenet of republican ideology (nothing to do w American republicanism), but it is absolutely at odds with liberal democratic ideology and contradicts the reality of the state, which a liberal would typically say is a government instantiated over a territory. Democratic ideology says that the society is actually not just the citizens, but everyone who participates in life in the territory, including non-citizens that are vital to maintaining a productive economy. The constitution, for democrats/liberals, names who in the territory counts as a citizen, but they do not go on to consider only citizens as the owners and beneficiaries of society. As we can see, contemporary American conservatism imagines only white men as full citizens that are entitled to pursue life and the pursuit of happiness, and which are further empowered by an understanding of liberty as white men's liberty to pursue others lives as their property, thus we have cases like this (https://www.theguardian.com/comment...of-a-six-week-embryo-suing-an-abortion-clinic) where men pursue their right to own the women of society's bodies collectively (the 'mra' agenda) and in the ongoing trend of wealth inequality that is sustained by the idea that owning others, as slaves or wage slaves, enhances ones own 'liberty'.

just want to clarify some confusion about ideology im seeing.

further, radical democrats do not see electing officials as the end or substance of democracy. actually, representation can hinder 'true' democracy because even in PRESENTING some interest or group interest, they are not in fact PRESENT. So there is a disagreement amongst democrats about what to make of representative democracy and whether it can actually help bring new voices to the table or whether it is not an avenue for silencing those voices by 'misrepresentation' if you will

 

[orch]

As we can see, contemporary American conservatism imagines only white men as full citizens that are entitled to pursue life and the pursuit of happiness, and which are further empowered by an understanding of liberty as white men's liberty to pursue others lives as their property,

Yes, it's true that you derive power by exploiting the wage slaves. I question the idea that only White Men is capable of doing this (this is blatant racism and have some pride in the fact that minorities people are capable of doing same thing). Anyone who is rich and in the elite class are automatically guilty of what you accuse them of, regardless of their phenotype. The problem is economic, not identity. Can you present a coherent and clear case that it is indeed phenotype that people derive power from, opposed to the capital? I'm not gonna touch the abortion thing in this thread lmao. Biopower is an interesting topic that deserve its own thread.

further, radical democrats do not see electing officials as the end or substance of democracy. actually, representation can hinder 'true' democracy because even in PRESENTING some interest or group interest, they are not in fact PRESENT. So there is a disagreement amongst democrats about what to make of representative democracy and whether it can actually help bring new voices to the table or whether it is not an avenue for silencing those voices by 'misrepresentation' if you will

I agree, and can you present a system where all of the voices will be present in a government system?

 

[Myzozoa]

Can you present a coherent and clear case that it is indeed phenotype that people derive power from, opposed to the capital? I'm not gonna touch the abortion thing in this thread lmao. Biopower is an interesting topic that deserve its own thread.

can you read because if not nothing i say will be coherent... im saying that contemporary and historical american conservatism asserts that only white men should be able to exploit others, it has nothing to do with phenotype, or with some idea that only they have some innate genetic capacity to exploit.

google search whiteness as property by cheryl harris, i estimate this will be at least the 2nd time ive mentioned this reading to you

 

[Celticpride]

You don’t need to outrun the bear, you only have to outrun the slower guy. xD

View attachment 164633

"Sanders’s support among black voters, at 28 percent, puts him in second place among that demographic, behind Biden, at 32 percent. He trailed Biden 31-25 among whites."

From The Intercept headline you quoted. 28 percent is a bold place to start making claims that Sanders base has changed or is drawing minorities. Framing it as "2 to 1" is clickbait with that kind of polling data.

 

[orch]

can you read because if not nothing i say will be coherent... im saying that contemporary and historical american conservatism asserts that only white men should be able to exploit others, it has nothing to do with phenotype, or with some idea that only they have some innate genetic capacity to exploit.

google search whiteness as property by cheryl harris, i estimate this will be at least the 2nd time ive mentioned this reading to you

I agree that there was historical racism against minorities which prevent them from accessing the markets to capitalize on others. What are some of the examples of contemporary barriers against people without "whiteness" that prevents them from capitalizing on others? Here's my counterexample: Arthur Haynes is a black bitcoin whale who owns Bitmex.com and he is successfully capitalizing on NEETs.

btw, i cannot agree with the idea of property rights being an inherently white concept. all of the ancient societies of all the races had properties.

 

[Heracr055]

I haven't read any of the posts but I've been keeping up with politics for awhile. The concern here is that there are so many different candidates here that any infighting between them could amplify fractures in the Democratic voter base (this is what happened between Bernie & Hillary and helped to contribute to today's circus that is the Trump presidency). I'm just concerned history will repeat itself here.
Wonder if Beto O'rourke is going to run.

 

[Myzozoa]

btw, i cannot agree with the idea of property rights being an inherently white concept. all of the ancient societies of all the races had properties.

again u literally arent reading anything im saying, i suggest stop waiting around for my posts to misinterpret them and find something to do with urself, idk if im allowed to say im ignoring you publicly, but i am

i never said property rights are an inherently white concept i dont even know what that would mean if i did say it lol

 

[Chou Toshio]

In bold is the basic tenet of republican ideology (nothing to do w American republicanism), but it is absolutely at odds with liberal democratic ideology and contradicts the reality of the state, which a liberal would typically say is a government instantiated over a territory. Democratic ideology says that the society is actually not just the citizens, but everyone who participates in life in the territory, including non-citizens that are vital to maintaining a productive economy. The constitution, for democrats/liberals, names who in the territory counts as a citizen, but they do not go on to consider only citizens as the owners and beneficiaries of society. As we can see, contemporary American conservatism imagines only white men as full citizens that are entitled to pursue life and the pursuit of happiness, and which are further empowered by an understanding of liberty as white men's liberty to pursue others lives as their property, thus we have cases like this (https://www.theguardian.com/comment...of-a-six-week-embryo-suing-an-abortion-clinic) where men pursue their right to own the women of society's bodies collectively (the 'mra' agenda) and in the ongoing trend of wealth inequality that is sustained by the idea that owning others, as slaves or wage slaves, enhances ones own 'liberty'.

just want to clarify some confusion about ideology im seeing.

further, radical democrats do not see electing officials as the end or substance of democracy. actually, representation can hinder 'true' democracy because even in PRESENTING some interest or group interest, they are not in fact PRESENT. So there is a disagreement amongst democrats about what to make of representative democracy and whether it can actually help bring new voices to the table or whether it is not an avenue for silencing those voices by 'misrepresentation' if you will

I see that as only pointing at a need to expand the definition of citizen, or expand the definition of voter; and I would go with the most expansive definition— but at the end of the day, you still end up with some defined stakeholder group.

I also agree that representation brings with it all sorts of problems.

I think at the end of the day though, what we get is a problem of practicality vs ideals— against a libertarian direction that offers freedom through more control but requires more participation, vs a freedom we can offer to people by freeing up more time in a day by having good systems to begin with (and requiring less of people to protect themselves and their interests).

What we’re really running into in both of these topics is ideals vs. practical constraints. “[Form of democracy x] is the worst government— except for all the others.” What we’re doing now is clearly not working and requires a big move towards more democracy, but there are always the constraints of the era to contend with.

 

[Chou Toshio]

It’s really amazing to watch voters like this who say they were avid Hillary supporters, who support Harris or Booker or ORoark come say that...

They love AOC but despise Bernie.

That is just so bizarre. It’s like they’re living in an alternate dimension where issues and political ideology and understanding of the world means nothing at all.

I am really, really, REALLY looking forward to seeing what people like this do on Twitter when she endorses Bernie.

And I’m even more looking forward to the Justice Democrats to come.

 

[Myzozoa]

I see that as only pointing at a need to expand the definition of citizen, or expand the definition of voter; and I would go with the most expansive definition— but at the end of the day, you still end up with some defined stakeholder group.

thats p much what i think too, however, I suspect that the conservatives in America have co-opted the discourses of citizen identity. Their strategy is to contract the definition of the citizen and sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. So like you said, I would go in the direction of having a strong social system that protects people from disenfranchisement as well as helping them thrive rather than looking to argue w the conservative narrative that questions whether immigrants really deserve to be here, if they should assimilate, or w.e level that narrative happens to be regarding who belongs in America.

It's not an either-or situation, but if you look at MikeDawg 's video you see that Sanders does not explain that black people already disproportionately belong to the working class, only saying that he has passed legislation to help 'working people'. Universal income and most especially housing programs would disproportionately help poc, but I actually think if he limits his platform to these universal programs he will not draw in voters for the primary. In the first place, the rest of the field is ready to endorse free tuition, free housing, universal basic income, and a universal 15$ min wage. In the second place, choosing to define the object of liberation as the working class will not be sufficient in and of itself to address the issues facing people of color and especially women of color. If work continues to be understood as that which is done for a wage offered by an employer, there is not as obvious of an incentive for women and people of color (who give up their time to do the unpaid labor of domestic work, elder care, childcare, etc ('etc' because I don't know/cant name all the ways in which poc give up their time to their communities for free)) to get behind the platform. Anyway, it is p sad to me that in MikeDawg's video Sanders doesn't seem to articulate that universal social policies will mainly benefit poor people and people of color, but I am not surprised since I do not believe electoral politics will be sufficient to fix a broken American society and political system and I hope ppl who are invested in electoral politics will use their privilege to strengthen and build community 'separate' from the machinations of electoral politics.

 

[THE_IRON_...KENYAN?]

 

[Chou Toshio]

thats p much what i think too, however, I suspect that the conservatives in America have co-opted the discourses of citizen identity. Their strategy is to contract the definition of the citizen and sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. So like you said, I would go in the direction of having a strong social system that protects people from disenfranchisement as well as helping them thrive rather than looking to argue w the conservative narrative that questions whether immigrants really deserve to be here, if they should assimilate, or w.e level that narrative happens to be regarding who belongs in America.

It's not an either-or situation, but if you look at MikeDawg 's video you see that Sanders does not explain that black people already disproportionately belong to the working class, only saying that he has passed legislation to help 'working people'. Universal income and most especially housing programs would disproportionately help poc, but I actually think if he limits his platform to these universal programs he will not draw in voters for the primary. In the first place, the rest of the field is ready to endorse free tuition, free housing, universal basic income, and a universal 15$ min wage. In the second place, choosing to define the object of liberation as the working class will not be sufficient in and of itself to address the issues facing people of color and especially women of color. If work continues to be understood as that which is done for a wage offered by an employer, there is not as obvious of an incentive for women and people of color (who give up their time to do the unpaid labor of domestic work, elder care, childcare, etc ('etc' because I don't know/cant name all the ways in which poc give up their time to their communities for free)) to get behind the platform. Anyway, it is p sad to me that in MikeDawg's video Sanders doesn't seem to articulate that universal social policies will mainly benefit poor people and people of color, but I am not surprised since I do not believe electoral politics will be sufficient to fix a broken American society and political system and I hope ppl who are invested in electoral politics will use their privilege to strengthen and build community 'separate' from the machinations of electoral politics.

Myzozoa is there a candidate you think has better politics in the field who speaks to those needs (sincerely) and is likely to win more of the electorate?

 

[Myzozoa]

Myzozoa is there a candidate you think has better politics in the field who speaks to those needs (sincerely) and is likely to win more of the electorate?

not yet

 

[Charmflash]

and she is a great choice for "first black, female president".

Do you mind explaining the reason as for why anybody would like to or should choose a black or female president on the basis of them being black or female?