Talk Elections

It seems they do, if their dear leader, Tulsi Gabbard does. All HEIL Gabbard!

No, and Gabbard is not the leader of the left.

Some do and some dont, much like the right. Unfortunately those who do keep getting more and more airtime.

No, and I'm pretty sure you're wrong about Gabbard

+1 who does.

Right... I'm not a Gabbard bro but I think Atlas hates her to a ridiculous extent.

Some parts do and some parts always did, at least if the people responsible flew the right flag. Politics is bad.

How the hell is Tulsi Gabbard the leader of the left? Even if just restricted to the US that's an absurd premise.

Tulsi Gabbard is only a "leader" because of the proxy war and the fact that she took a "stand" against the DNC in the 2016 primaries. Once an actual leader steps up, Tulsi won't be relevant anymore.

I've heard many people say that she is.

For good reason.

This.

Also, no. Gabbard is not the leader of the left.

I don't disagree with the negative mainstream Atlas view of Gabbard, but it's still silly to suggest she supports any of those 3 things

Gabbard is probably a Hindu nationalist, but she is dangerous because she will actually take a position on the issue, just because it happens to be popular. You would think all politicians would do this, but for some reason only Tulsi Gabbard does. This probably makes her the nominee in 2020.

However, her foreign policy views must be watched carefully. If she is consistent in her vocal opposition to regime change wars in general, and not just Syria/when the war would hurt opponents of Sunni Islamists, there is hope for her. If she is taking stances based on favoritism towards certain foreign interests over a considered approach to U.S. foreign policy, she is as much trouble as Trump on this front.

Her ties to Modi, and the BJP would entail that she supports all three things yes.

Then those people are pretty dumb. Compare how much attention Bernie Sanders is still getting...she's not getting 1/100th of that and literally the only remotely progressive thing about her is endorsing him.

This paragraph makes close to zero sense in general and seems to imply Hindu nationalists are popular amongst Democrats. Also why do people have this idea that "Bernie Bros" basically will decide the nomination single handedly?

DU and DailyKos were pretty pro Sanders sites but if you read what they say about her it's usually trashing her for being a Trump supporting Russian puppet. So much for the idea that whoever a candidate endorsed in 2020 will be the only issue in the Democratic primary.

Outside Desi communities and nutcases like us on Atlas, most people don't even know what the "BJP" even is, let alone the implication.

No?

What no? Obviously her Hindu nationalist positions aren't because they're popular. And how does it make close to zero sense?


I don't know about DU. But although Daily Kos was pro Sanders during the primary, after that a lot of the Sanders people were gradually driven out and Daily Kos is an establishment hack site now, sad to say.

()

less so than ever before

The Gabbard hate on here is ridiculous.

Your love for her, tells me you're in no way a person of the actual left.

This is dumb.

I find it fascinating how divisive of a candidate Gabbard is within the Democratic Party.

No.

Not sure how this became a thread on Tulsi Gabbard, but I thought these two lines from Wikipedia were relevant to the discussion:

In October 2016, the Southern Poverty Law Center accused Ayaan, and the liberal Muslim reformer Maajid Nawaz, of being "anti-Muslim extremists", which caused protests in several prominent newspapers. The Lantos Foundation for Human Rights & Justice has written a public letter to the SPLC to retract the listings.

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

Nawaz is good, if a bit of an egotist. (Even the splc was hilariously vague about why they put him on the list)

Ali however is another matter. Classic example of identity politics by the right: 'omg you can't accuse x of being wrong because she is brown etc'. Never mind the fact she is a notorious liar. Probably wrong to put on the list, but definitely a suspicious character (the same as her compatriot on the left Sarsour). Also how weird is it she is married to Niall Ferguson lol.

The SPLC has tended to be a little more political and less objective with their standards in the past year or two.

It's similar to the lack of objectivity of fact checking sites like Snopes and Politifact which have their own failings but are often used as the prime source to debunk items.

Man Tulsi Gabbard is totally the leader of the left, right?

It's genuinely amazing how people keep falling for the same grift over and over. Jimmy Dore, Glen Greenwald, now Tulsi... "Look at me, I'm so edgy and #Populist <3 I'm siding with fascists to own the libs!" How many times to they get to pull that sh*t before people get tired of it?

Do people really fall for that though? The ratio of discourse I see attacking those people to support of them is like 20:1, most of the support not from the left. The zero chance sacrificial lamb candidate for State Senate in my district has retweeted Greenwald. And we all saw how successful Gabbard was with D voters.

Anecdotally, there definitely seems to be a type of anti-establishment leftist who was pro-Bernie in 2016 and maybe even in 2020 but drifted to the far-right since. Those people are probably overrepresented online and they're probably a marginal demographic IRL, but the fact that they exist at all is still kinda depressing.

The left has always hated black people. Obama brought slavery back to libya

LOL. The Democratic party is verging on ANC level black empowerment politics. The only racism the American left has is towards whites.

How is being political a sign of lacking objectivity? There’s a difference between truth and neutrality. The “view from nowhere” is for the most part, a pernicious myth.

Yes, the left is a communist, elitist, globalist ideology that is tied to China.