She has a problematic past for sure but tbh she's better than basically everyone else in the federal government on foreign policy issues. She's better than Bernie or AOC in that regard. I think people here really hate her because she challenged daddy bernard, but even then she defended him when Liz Warren accused him of sexism.
As far as I know she is not "pro-modhi", she just met him. It's not really weird for an Indian-American politician too meet with the leader of India lol. A bunch of twitter leftists deemed her a hindu fascist because an Indian-American supporter of hers asked her to take a photo wearing a BJP scarf and she politely obliged not realizing what it was. The whole accusation seems kinda racist honestly.
As for the war on terror, she is one of the only politicians in the US talking about Saudi Arabia's support of Sunni terrorist groups but opposes the military actions the US does in the name of the "war on terror".
As for going on Tucker, who fucking cares? She doesn't shit talk "the left", she shit talks neoliberal Dems. The idea that going on Fox news means you're a right winger is peak lib brain.
If you're going to criticize her for anything, it should be the same things that every american politician should be criticized for, being pro-america and pro-capitalism. The only difference between her and Bernie is that she doesn't falsely call herself a socialist and she has better foreign policy. She upholds Amerikkka, so she's definitely not good, but she is better than basically all the rest even if she does the whole cringe "I love America" troop spiel.
Imagine trusting jakkkobin on literally anything even remotely close to foreign policy issues.
Either way she's a Democrat that loves this shithole country, so yeah she is bad. Just don't think Bernie's Yugoslavia-bombing, Afghan war-voting ass is better.
Both stumble into a correct position occasionally while spewing their bourgeois ideology. Ironically both are basically only right when ripping neoliberal Democrats, and that isn't what this article is doing. It's obvious that this was an article meant to prevent like 100 Bernie bro simps from voting Tulsi over Bernie because their positions are similar but she's hot and young.
Tbh, Tucker and Jacobin serve the same purpose: to spread false consciousness to a particular subset of mostly petit bourgeois workers and funnel their rage and energy into a political program that preserves and fortifies capitalism. One is diet fascism and the other is social fascism.
"Social fascism" is a bullshit term used by people like the Red Guards to excuse physically assaulting people at DSA meetings. It's a garbage concept. Calling anything left of actual socialism some form of fascism totally removes any meaning from the word. Cut it out.
It's also incredibly silly to claim that Tucker and Jacobin "stumble into the right position" at the same or even similar rates. And he's more than a diet fascist tbh, he's an outright fash and going on his show, even to dunk on neolibs, is contributing to his fash messaging. He's one of the most dangerous fascists in the country as well. I'm not so obsessed with owning the libs (because I'm not a CHUD, I'm a leftist) that I'll enjoy dunks on neolibs from an outright fascist, even if they're technically correct. So fuck Tulsi and Greenwald and anyone who thinks joining Tucker in dunking on neolibs is cool. Tbh I agree with the libs when they spread around a screenshot of Glenn and Tucker laughing together, that shit is fucking sickening. Not everything that isn't actual socialism is equally evil, and some leftists inability to understand that makes me disgusted with the left at times.
So's Obama and the ruling class as a whole. The pivot to India is complete and its neoliberal turn means any racist authoritarianism will be forgiven.
pro terror war, but anti regime change war
...which still makes her better than Bernie and AOC on foreign policy. The terror "war" is awful, but it has a tiny footprint compared to the regime change wars.
Additionally, if regime change wars were ended, massive amounts of money could be freed up for domestic programs.
Additionally, if regime change wars were ended, massive amounts of money could be freed up for domestic programs.
Eh, the regime change wars perpetuate US Imperialism which is why we have so much money in the first place. There is no option where we pull out of foreign conflicts and still have all this money to go around. There can be no social democracy without Imperialism in a post-industrial society. That's why we need a revolution.
-How much money is burnt into thin air so that a fraction of it can go to rich people
And compare that to what we would need to make everyone live good lives.
You can even ignore rent costs. And most of medical costs, since those are extractively overpriced. We designed unemployment to sit at 5% or whatever, meaning more people can become doctors and lower the real price of medical services. Free rent, cheap doctors? Cheaper electricity and public transit. short or nonexistant commutes? Unoppressed global south producing better goods?
With all of that together, I think we could all live better than the average American does now. But I don't know. Would the loss of super cheap raw materials make that impossible?
She has a problematic past for sure but tbh she's better than basically everyone else in the federal government on foreign policy issues. She's better than Bernie or AOC in that regard. I think people here really hate her because she challenged daddy bernard, but even then she defended him when Liz Warren accused him of sexism.
isnt she pro modhi and terror war, but anti regime change war? She also goes on Tucker to dunk on the left
As far as I know she is not "pro-modhi", she just met him. It's not really weird for an Indian-American politician too meet with the leader of India lol. A bunch of twitter leftists deemed her a hindu fascist because an Indian-American supporter of hers asked her to take a photo wearing a BJP scarf and she politely obliged not realizing what it was. The whole accusation seems kinda racist honestly.
As for the war on terror, she is one of the only politicians in the US talking about Saudi Arabia's support of Sunni terrorist groups but opposes the military actions the US does in the name of the "war on terror".
As for going on Tucker, who fucking cares? She doesn't shit talk "the left", she shit talks neoliberal Dems. The idea that going on Fox news means you're a right winger is peak lib brain.
If you're going to criticize her for anything, it should be the same things that every american politician should be criticized for, being pro-america and pro-capitalism. The only difference between her and Bernie is that she doesn't falsely call herself a socialist and she has better foreign policy. She upholds Amerikkka, so she's definitely not good, but she is better than basically all the rest even if she does the whole cringe "I love America" troop spiel.
She literally said Obama was being too soft forpo wise. She's fake as fuck.
ETA: https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/05/tulsi-gabbard-president-sanders-democratic-party she's not good folks.
Imagine trusting jakkkobin on literally anything even remotely close to foreign policy issues.
Either way she's a Democrat that loves this shithole country, so yeah she is bad. Just don't think Bernie's Yugoslavia-bombing, Afghan war-voting ass is better.
lmao, dismissing Jacobin based on source rather than content but then also saying that going on Tucker isn't automatically bad. Real consistent dude.
Both stumble into a correct position occasionally while spewing their bourgeois ideology. Ironically both are basically only right when ripping neoliberal Democrats, and that isn't what this article is doing. It's obvious that this was an article meant to prevent like 100 Bernie bro simps from voting Tulsi over Bernie because their positions are similar but she's hot and young.
Tbh, Tucker and Jacobin serve the same purpose: to spread false consciousness to a particular subset of mostly petit bourgeois workers and funnel their rage and energy into a political program that preserves and fortifies capitalism. One is diet fascism and the other is social fascism.
"Social fascism" is a bullshit term used by people like the Red Guards to excuse physically assaulting people at DSA meetings. It's a garbage concept. Calling anything left of actual socialism some form of fascism totally removes any meaning from the word. Cut it out.
It's also incredibly silly to claim that Tucker and Jacobin "stumble into the right position" at the same or even similar rates. And he's more than a diet fascist tbh, he's an outright fash and going on his show, even to dunk on neolibs, is contributing to his fash messaging. He's one of the most dangerous fascists in the country as well. I'm not so obsessed with owning the libs (because I'm not a CHUD, I'm a leftist) that I'll enjoy dunks on neolibs from an outright fascist, even if they're technically correct. So fuck Tulsi and Greenwald and anyone who thinks joining Tucker in dunking on neolibs is cool. Tbh I agree with the libs when they spread around a screenshot of Glenn and Tucker laughing together, that shit is fucking sickening. Not everything that isn't actual socialism is equally evil, and some leftists inability to understand that makes me disgusted with the left at times.
deleted by creator
they're the same picture
I mean yeah, she is cool with regime change war when there is a terrorism pretext, and not when someone admits the goal.
So's Obama and the ruling class as a whole. The pivot to India is complete and its neoliberal turn means any racist authoritarianism will be forgiven.
...which still makes her better than Bernie and AOC on foreign policy. The terror "war" is awful, but it has a tiny footprint compared to the regime change wars.
Additionally, if regime change wars were ended, massive amounts of money could be freed up for domestic programs.
Eh, the regime change wars perpetuate US Imperialism which is why we have so much money in the first place. There is no option where we pull out of foreign conflicts and still have all this money to go around. There can be no social democracy without Imperialism in a post-industrial society. That's why we need a revolution.
I dunno,
Someone really needs to quantify
-How much money is wasted on rich people
-How much money is burnt into thin air so that a fraction of it can go to rich people
And compare that to what we would need to make everyone live good lives.
You can even ignore rent costs. And most of medical costs, since those are extractively overpriced. We designed unemployment to sit at 5% or whatever, meaning more people can become doctors and lower the real price of medical services. Free rent, cheap doctors? Cheaper electricity and public transit. short or nonexistant commutes? Unoppressed global south producing better goods?
With all of that together, I think we could all live better than the average American does now. But I don't know. Would the loss of super cheap raw materials make that impossible?