Are You Going to Watch the Debates?

[Socrates99]

I don't think it's specifically her relationship with Modi that is concerning but her ideological links with right-wing Hindu nationalism. It's concerning because right-wing Hindu nationalism is very bad.

If you haven't read the second piece I linked about India's elections last month, I'd recommend it. It might answer some of your questions about why this is concerning.



The fact that she is a Hindu woman of Indian descent means very little to me. I don't think people are immunized against bad politics by their identities.

Now that I'm home I did take time to read it. Hindu Nationalism sounds about as bad, maybe worse, as any of the other ethnic/cultural nationalism movements. What it still doesn't do is explain why someone who clearly doesn't let religion impact legislation and is on the record as being anti theocratic is somehow impacted by Hindu nationalism in a way that will have a negative impact on the US.

The identity thing wasn't aimed at you it was aimed at the article which goes out of its way to repeatedly link her to white nationalists. So what if David Duke likes the fact that she's a noninterventionist? It's a dumb attempt to tie people like that to her.

To be clear, I'm not the kind of guy who ignores constructive criticism. I used to kind of like Andrew Yang until Michael Brooks did a very good criticism of Yang's version of UBI. I'm not in favor of him anymore. Give me good constructive criticism as in how the stuff I'm labeling as smears will negatively impact America and you might change my mind. At any rate she's my number 3 at best.

She attempts to present herself as a progressive on foreign policy when she is not, that's why all of this matters. Modi was long denied a US Visa because of his role in the Gujarat riots, and she basically was a staunch ally of his even back then, when nothing about her political career was at a federal, much less international level.

"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 has been in favor of a 3-way Iraq partition. She praised Sisi. She has spoken in favor of allying with Saudi Arabia in military matters (look where that has gotten us). She's said torture can work in some situations. Her meeting with Assad was organized by literal fascists. She criticized Kuwait for having women in burqas, a classic Islamophobic talking point. She's spoken at events hosted by John Hagee, a conspiratorial Islamophobe and radical Christian. Her refugees admitting resolution in Iraq during ISIS's rampage there prioritized Christians and Yazidis with specific language. It goes on and on. She is a dove unless it comes to Islam, when she is bombs away. She's never met a slightly secular brutal dictator she hasn't liked.

When she first endorsed Bernie she managed to thrust herself into this coverage of being a total progressive. Her foreign policy is more hawkish than several in the current field. She is basically Obama with more support for torture. Whoopee.

Maybe in the past she spoke in favor of allying with Saudi Arabia but have you seen her criticism of Trump's relationship with SA? Didn't her "Stop arming terrorists" act display a move away from Obama's arming and training insurgents policy? How is criticism of a country for mandating Burqas not progressive? Progressives tolerate personal choice but hate it when a country mandates religious law. Defending religious fundamentalist Muslims is partly why the right can so easily badger us into a corner when we criticize fundamentalist Christians. I understand the interest in protecting persecuted minorities but the gut reaction shouldn't be defending rightwing Muslims from other right wingers.

The brutal secular dictator BS is a strawman. She won't denounce Assad as an enemy. That's different from calling him a friend. This is a non interventionist running to be head of state who is avoiding calling for any other world leader to be deposed by the US. It may not sound like it but trying to get her to demonize another leader is attacking her from the right, not the left. It's an attempt to either get her to abandon noninterventionism or, if she remains steadfast, criticize her for not openly calling a bad guy a bad guy.

Since we're in the debate thread I'll just ask, how is her direct criticism of Tim Ryan's "we need to stay engaged in Afghanistan" a continuation of Obama's foreign policy? How is calling for an end to regime change wars a continuation of the foreign policy of the guy who engaged in multiple regime change attempts? Part of the criticism in the Jacobin article was that she was too concerned with American lives and money being wasted on these wars. Drones are expensive. She's not flying them over Iran to get shot down.

 

[ulyssesSgrant]

She's not a Republican, if she was I would have said so and it wouldn't have mattered one bit. Bill Clinton and Barack Obama are Democrats and they attacked enough people to show foreign policy is a bi-partisan effort. You skipped by them out of nostalgia for the 80s? At least those invasions didn't result in the bloody mess Obama created in Syria.

If you ignore Obama and Clinton as well as World War I, World War II, the Korea War and the Vietnam War then I would say democratic presidents have a very rich anti-war history.

 

[Berzerker]

The identity thing wasn't aimed at you it was aimed at the article which goes out of its way to repeatedly link her to white nationalists. So what if David Duke likes the fact that she's a noninterventionist? It's a dumb attempt to tie people like that to her.

Its a smear job, the reference to David Duke was a dead giveaway. Oh noooo, David Duke doesn't want to invade other countries. You peacemongers are evil!

The brutal secular dictator BS is a strawman. She won't denounce Assad as an enemy. That's different from calling him a friend. This is a non interventionist running to be head of state who is avoiding calling for any other world leader to be deposed by the US. It may not sound like it but trying to get her to demonize another leader is attacking her from the right, not the left. It's an attempt to either get her to abandon noninterventionism or, if she remains steadfast, criticize her for not openly calling a bad guy a bad guy.

When Obama bowed, the GOP howled... And when Trump smiled at Vlad the left went mad. These partisans actually think the President should stand next to Putin and call him a liar? Was that true for Barack "tell Vlad I'll have more flexibility after the election" Obama?

How is calling for an end to regime change wars a continuation of the foreign policy of the guy who engaged in multiple regime change attempts? Part of the criticism in the Jacobin article was that she was too concerned with American lives and money being wasted on these wars. Drones are expensive. She's not flying them over Iran to get shot down.

I'm sure the author tore into Obama for his trail of tears

 

[Lexicus]

Now that I'm home I did take time to read it. Hindu Nationalism sounds about as bad, maybe worse, as any of the other ethnic/cultural nationalism movements. What it still doesn't do is explain why someone who clearly doesn't let religion impact legislation and is on the record as being anti theocratic is somehow impacted by Hindu nationalism in a way that will have a negative impact on the US.

The identity thing wasn't aimed at you it was aimed at the article which goes out of its way to repeatedly link her to white nationalists. So what if David Duke likes the fact that she's a noninterventionist? It's a dumb attempt to tie people like that to her.

To be clear, I'm not the kind of guy who ignores constructive criticism. I used to kind of like Andrew Yang until Michael Brooks did a very good criticism of Yang's version of UBI. I'm not in favor of him anymore. Give me good constructive criticism as in how the stuff I'm labeling as smears will negatively impact America and you might change my mind. At any rate she's my number 3 at best.

Someone who is susceptible to right-wing Hindu nationalism is demonstrating a problematic lack of judgment making them unsuitable for the Presidency in my view.

 

[Socrates99]

Someone who is susceptible to right-wing Hindu nationalism is demonstrating a problematic lack of judgment making them unsuitable for the Presidency in my view.

That's not an answer.

 

[Lexicus]

That's not an answer.

I think it is. Being publicly friendly with Modi is kind of like being publicly friendly with Henry Kissinger or Strom Thurmond. Not a good look.

 

[Berzerker]

I'm sure Joe has a few stories about the good old days with Strom

 

[Socrates99]

I think it is. Being publicly friendly with Modi is kind of like being publicly friendly with Henry Kissinger or Strom Thurmond. Not a good look.

This is similar to the dictator strawman. She's a US congresswoman who was congratulated by Modi for being the first Indo-American congresswoman. I have yet to be shown any sign that she prefers or even approves of his ideology over that of other Indian leaders. When I asked why it's ok for other politicians but not her it was because Obama was head of state and had to right? Are there congress people attacking Modi (other than those that just don't like brown people anyway)? Is it wrong to be diplomatic? or is she supposed to denounce the leader of an ally? People keep saying "friendly with Modi, friendly with Modi" but can't seem to link it with any examples of how that will have a negative impact. It certainly doesn't seem to impact her legislation. If they were in the same legislative body she'd be directly opposing most of his views with her vote record and legislation. That doesn't sound like someone adopting his ideology.

On one hand GoodEnoughForMe is slamming her for not demonizing secular dictators on the other you're attacking her for not denouncing a Hindu nationalist. At the same time the article you linked for me laid out her exact reason for changing her views on LGBTQ rights, her revulsion for theocracy. She's a Hindu in favor of secular government. A non interventionist who isn't interested in alienation of allies.

I'm sorry, but as far as I can see it's just people falling for smears.

 

[Lexicus]

I have yet to be shown any sign that she prefers or even approves of his ideology over that of other Indian leaders.

From the "smear piece"

Despite all of this, Gabbard has been one of Modi’s most prominent boosters in the US. “He is a leader whose example and dedication to the people he serves should be an inspiration to elected officials everywhere,” she said of Modi in 2014.

For about a decade, the United States refused to give Modi a visa to travel to the US in light of his involvement in the Gujarat riots. For Gabbard, this was a “great blunder,” and she later told the pressthat “there was a lot of misinformation that surrounded the event in 2002.” She personally congratulated Modi on his 2014 election, and was later involved in organizing his first trip to the US. She also met two BJP leaders who had visited the United States beforehand, and spoke alongside them at an event in Atlanta.

When a congressional panel was held in April 2014 on “the plight of religious minorities in India,” with witnesses testifying about the mistreatment of Muslims, Gabbard said she didn’t “believe the time of this hearing is a coincidence” and that it aimed to “influence the outcome of India’s national elections.” Gabbard voted against House Resolution 417, which criticized India’s record on religious violence and called for specific measures to guarantee religious freedom in the country, explaining that its passage wouldn’t help US-India relations. Yet two years later, Gabbard introduced a similar resolution that covered neighboring Muslim-majority Bangladesh, saying she was “particularly concerned over issues of religious freedom, and specifically, attacks against minority Hindus, Christians, Buddhists, and others” in the country.

 

[Berzerker]

From the "smear piece"

David Duke endorses your post

 

[Socrates99]

From the "smear piece"

Right, did you follow the links? A US representative acted diplomatically towards the leader of another democracy and ally on visits by him and to his country. I suppose if we ever elect a Turk to congress and he doesn't spit on Erdogan while on diplomatic visits he'd be complicit? It's a stretch. One that likely wouldn't exist if she were Christian.

This is similar to Donald Trump telling Jewish Americans that Bibi is their prime minister.

 

[Lexicus]

Voting against a resolution condemning anti-Muslim violence in India in 2014? Saying it was a "great blunder" not to give him a visa because of his involvement in the 2002 Gujarat riots?

That goes well beyond "act[ing] diplomatically". That you are trying to paint this as some sort of anti-Hindu racism is absurd.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Watching on youtube so I'm behind but I think Kamala Harris just proposed quasi-universal income. She proposes to give every family earning less than $100k/year a tax rebate of $500/mo.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Holy crap Kamala is blowing the roof off the damn place. WOW

 

[Narz]

Butty gets props for 1st candidate on stage to ever give props to atheists (probably). And for pointing out the hypocrisy of Christians.

 

[Narz]

Holy crap Kamala is blowing the roof off the damn place. WOW

Yeah, her & Butty have the best speaking voices (that weird scar under his nose is distracting tho).

 

[Berzerker]

too much hand waving

thats so fascinating, I have to believe our ape-like ancestors developed communication by hand waving before speech replaced it, but its left hand waving to devolve into gibberish. Turn off the sound and try to figure out what they're saying based on how they wave their hands.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Hand waiving and the eye flash you do when you spot someone across the room. I read that's a uniquely human behavior

I like the author (can't remember her name) but I feel like she's an anti-vaxxer.

 

[Narz]

And God Marianne Williams has the worst possible voice.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

That the author? I actually am quite fond of her voice and the way she talks. She's very eloquent.