Permanently Deleted

  • kilternkafuffle [any]
    arrow-down
    14
    ·
    4 years ago

    That's not a fair characterization - and is kind of a lib attack, as it's deflecting/defending AOC/Pelosi from a leftist critique.

    Jimmy Dore has more radical and populist politics, so he wanted someone with more oomph than Bernie. Many Chapos routinely take the same position, "Bernie's a cuck, he sold out, look how the DNC screwed him even though he gave them everything, etc."

    At the time, Tulsi looked like Bernie with more punch, Bernie with a couple shots of kahlua, if you will. She actually looked like Bernie's attack dog - he says "my good friend Joe", Tulsi says "Kamala is a crooked cop hiding evidence to keep innocents in prison". She had resigned from the DNC in protest in 2016 and was one of the most prominent voices saying the primary was rigged against Bernie.

    Tulsi was better than Bernie in one regard - the willingness to criticize the US foreign policy. It's by far the most radical anti-war position expressed by a Democratic Presidential candidate (or a prominent Democrat period) in recent years. (Her overall foreign policy is questionable - but it's still better and more radical than that of Sanders.)

    Foreign policy matters more to Dore than domestic does - so it's not a fair attack to say he didn't care about M4A just because it wasn't his utmost priority.

    Stanning for Tulsi was a strategy of pushing Bernie and the Dems as a whole even further left - not actually about supporting Tulsi. (You'd be right to point out that Tulsi has more conservative social views, but that's not what Jimmy Dore EVER emphasized when extolling her. That's like the attacks on Sanders for opposing a few gun control measures - technically in this one place it makes him more "conservative", but that's not what his movement was ever about. Same with Tulsi stans - at least the leftist ones. )

    In addition, Tulsi Gabbard cosponsored the Medicare For All Act in 2017 and in 2019. (I haven't looked at the specific bills, but I'm pretty sure both were endorsed by Sanders.) She's still a member of the Medicare For All Caucus. She did switch to a watered-down version of M4A during the primary, along with every other candidate except Sanders. But she never attacked Sanders or his plan.

    • CanYouFeelItMrKrabs [any, he/him]
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      4 years ago

      In addition, Tulsi Gabbard cosponsored the Medicare For All Act in 2017 and in 2019. (I haven’t looked at the specific bills, but I’m pretty sure both were endorsed by Sanders.) She’s still a member of the Medicare For All Caucus. She did switch to a watered-down version of M4A during the primary, along with every other candidate except Sanders. But she never attacked Sanders or his plan.

      And that's why a vote on M4A does not matter. All the cosponsors can vote yes, because it won't pass the House. In a few years they'll flip their positions if Dems actually have the votes to pass it.

      • kilternkafuffle [any]
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        4 years ago

        It does matter. I don't care if they're all faking it - the more of them do it the more popular it looks and the more pressure there is on those who didn't cosponsor to do so next time.

        Yes, the Dems routinely pretend to want popular shit specifically because they can't actually pass it. But that isn't nothing. It puts them on the record. It sets up leftist talking points against them if they ever reverse their position. It's a long battle - but every tiny step is progress.

        What's the alternative? "Yes, Madam Speaker, we don't want to alienate Representative Baxter Oilwellington of Louisiana, a $15 minimum wage by 2050 is a fair compromise" ?

        • CanYouFeelItMrKrabs [any, he/him]
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          4 years ago

          What’s the alternative? “Yes, Madam Speaker, we don’t want to alienate Representative Baxter Oilwellington of Louisiana, a $15 minimum wage by 2050 is a fair compromise” ?

          Give the climate change committee the power to advance legislation and issue subpoenas. At the moment it can't do that. Get rid of PAYGO rules that limit govt spending. Give the good committee positions to Jamaal Bowman and Cori Bush, give fuck all to the new moderates. Get Peolosi to wear clown makeup a few times idk.

          https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1337955687666749441

          If there are bad concessions then AOC should absolutely not vote for Pelosi as speaker. But I don't think the vote is happening until next month so we don't know what's happening quite yet. My only point is that an M4A isn't that exciting of a concession

          • kilternkafuffle [any]
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            4 years ago

            That's fair. But I don't think AOC demanding M4A more stringently is an obstacle to the other goals AND I don't think leftists yelling at AOC makes life more difficult for her - it helps her because she can say she's under pressure to demand even more.

            • CanYouFeelItMrKrabs [any, he/him]
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              4 years ago

              That's true, the anger at AOC is probably good for AOC's negotiations. Because she would be absolutely flamed for voting for Pelosi for nothing

    • longhorn617 [any]
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      4 years ago

      There was literally never any material reality in which Tulsi Gabbard was going to even come close to winning the nomination. She operated as another spoiler against Sanders, like Elizabeth Warren, and anyone who thinks that supporting her was "pushing Bernie left" is a pudding head. It's absolutely a fair characterization. The only viable choice if your opinion was "Bernie's a cuck" was to not participate in the Democratic primary at all. Tulsi fucking endorsed Biden over Bernie, she isn't anti-imperialist either.

      • kilternkafuffle [any]
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        4 years ago

        anyone who thinks that supporting her way “pushing Bernie left” is a pudding head

        Oh snap. Right back at you - I think anyone who thinks otherwise is a... marshmallow face. :surprised-pika:

        There was literally never any material reality in which Tulsi Gabbard was going to even come close to winning the nomination.

        Exactly. She ran to promote herself - but also was someone who'd bring radical talking points to a national platform.

        She operated as another spoiler against Sanders, like Elizabeth Warren

        Wrong. Warren actually competed and took votes away from Bernie. Tulsi got <1% of the votes and IMO competed for a different demographic than Bernie. If she ever showed Warren numbers, I'd agree she was acting as a spoiler and should have dropped out. But she didn't.

        The only viable choice if your opinion was “Bernie’s a cuck” was to not participate in the Democratic primary at all.

        That's not my opinion, it's just a common opinion here - I trust Bernie to be doing his best, but I don't thinking wanting to push him further is a bad idea.

        Tulsi fucking endorsed Biden over Bernie

        Yeah, that sucked. But it was after it was all over and Bernie was about to do the same. At the time there was a story that she offered to endorse Bernie and he rejected her - though I haven't managed to track down any details.

        she isn’t anti-imperialist either.

        Yeah, but more anti-imperialist than Bernie. Or, at least, I think it's reasonable to hold that opinion - leftists shouldn't castigate other leftists for having done so at the time.

        • longhorn617 [any]
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          4 years ago

          If you are endorsing Joe Biden, you aren't anti-imperialist.

          Wrong. Warren actually competed and took votes away from Bernie. Tulsi got <1% of the votes and IMO competed for a different demographic than Bernie. If she ever showed Warren numbers, I'd agree she was acting as a spoiler and should have dropped out. But she didn't.

          No, I'm right. Bernie to Trump voters are an actual phenomenon, and that's who she was targeting. That she was bad at it doesn't mean she wasn't operating as a spoiler.

          EDIT: Chapo Chat engaging in big "Joe Biden is anti-imperialist" energy.

          • kilternkafuffle [any]
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            4 years ago

            Bernie to Trump voters are an actual phenomenon, and that’s who she was targeting.

            Less of a phenomenon than Clinton to McCain voters - and was probably even less of a phenomenon in 2020 than in 2016, because Bernie was building a much less White coalition.

            That she was bad at it doesn’t mean she wasn’t operating as a spoiler.

            You have to actually spoil to be a spoiler. There're benefits to having more left politicians running - DeBlasio basically just endorsed Sanders' positions, for example. And even Warren helped Sanders in some debates. At some points the benefits are outweighed by the costs (e.g. Warren), but it wasn't the case for Tulsi.

          • kilternkafuffle [any]
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            4 years ago

            Good, we agree. Sanders and AOC should be tried in revolutionary court for their crimes.

            • longhorn617 [any]
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              4 years ago

              Sure, and Proud Troop Tulsi can be there too.

              • kilternkafuffle [any]
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                4 years ago

                That goes without saying... but then what are you doing criticizing Jimmy for pushing succdem AOC further left?

                • longhorn617 [any]
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  4 years ago

                  Lmao, he isn't "PuShInG hEr LeFt". He's a media figure responsible to no one, who is creating controversy because he makes money off of views. His views are down 25% over the last 30 days and he's got to pump those numbers up. If he actually gave that much of a shit about M4A, he wouldn't have wasted a bunch of time fighting for Tulsi Gabbard. That he's a broken clock doesn't make him trustworthy.

                • CanYouFeelItMrKrabs [any, he/him]
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  4 years ago

                  He isn't pushing her left, an M4A vote is useless since the cosponsors can just vote Yes knowing it's not a threat and won't pass. It wiill achieve nothing. They'll find reasons to turn against it when they have the votes to actually pass it. AOC should absolutely not vote for Pelosi without significant concessions, but an M4A vote would be a useless thing to ask for

        • FireAxel [he/him]
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          4 years ago

          I can't believe I'm reading something like this here. Jesus Christ.

    • FireAxel [he/him]
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      4 years ago

      At the time, Tulsi looked like Bernie with more punch

      Lol no she didn't. Every person with a brain knew what she was about during the primary. My man simped for her cause she appeared on his show and Bernie didn't. That's literally it. He's a fucking moron. The dude said that the chance Trump would get a SC judge appointed was the same as the moon falling into lake Michigan -- like you literally have to have brain damage to think that, especially as a political commentator. That anyone still takes him seriously, especially people on the left, is just fucking sad.

    • Manaanwasgreat [none/use name]
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 years ago

      At the time, Tulsi looked like Bernie with more punch, Bernie with a couple shots of kahlua, if you will.

      Nah. Listen I actually like Dore unlike most Chapos but he didn't support Tulsi because he thought she was a stronger version of Bernie. When people say he supported Tulsi out of spite for Bernie they're right, even if they're wrong on why he was so spiteful (it has nothing to do with not coming on his youtube channel). He was spiteful because he was really upset when Bernie endorsed Hillary. Kyle Kulinski talks about how Dore was personally very upset when that happened and couldn't forgive Bernie for it. I wasn't really upset at all because I knew Bernie would do that (he's capitulated to Democrats ever since he entered Congress) but it's honestly understandable for someone who really bought the Saint Bernard meme as Dore did.

      I do find it funny Chapos really seem to have a hate hard on for Dore, even though most of the "lefties" who fling shit at him primarily hate him for refusing to "vote blue no matter who" which most Chapos refuse to do as well.

      • kilternkafuffle [any]
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 years ago

        I appreciate the explanation! Didn't know the Hillary bit mattered to him that much. And, yeah, the I associate Dore hate with libness, which is maybe unfair, but the people attacking him don't seem to know much about him.

        • Manaanwasgreat [none/use name]
          ·
          edit-2
          4 years ago

          It's no problem. I honestly empathize a lot with why Dore did it, he was really hurt by someone he really looked up to. Still think Tulsi is total trash though.

          I think the Dore hate has to do with the fact a lot of Chapos are huge Sam Seder and Michael Brooks fans (They only made like 1000 videos slamming him after all). The same impressions people give of Dore here seem straight up lifted from Sam Seder videos. I've noticed that the most vocal anti Doreists on social media tend to either be Sam Seder employees or "friends of the show". That and the fact a decent amount of his audience are right wingers so there's silly tribalistic reasons at play. (The whole "NO, HOW DARE YOU TALK TO THE OTHER SIDE!!!!" which is endemic on Chapo.)