538: Liberals Would Be Foolish To Primary Joe Manchin

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Intell]

I love how the republicans won 2010, with that tactic, and have control of the house, senate, presidency, state legislatures, while having a tea party. Worked the worst!