I'm also really particular about people conflating Social Democracy and Democratic Socialism too tho.

This is why I'm often careful to specify that I support the "social democratic outcomes" that Sanders champions, because other candidates support those outcomes too when it comes to health, education, etc. I would say everyone from the center-left to where Sanders is is proposing reforms to protect, invest in, increase access to, and strengthen the 'welfare state'.

But to imply that nationalizing key industries (in his case, health insurance but also power generation if GND passed), instituting a federal job guarantee and national rent control, and pushing the sort of fiscal policy, trade restrictions, etc. that he favors is regular run-of-the mill Social Democrat territory is pushing it in my eyes. I don't understand why people always try to water down what the man says he is lol. He's a Democratic Socialist, there's a difference *shrug* And it doesn't have to be sensationalized or controversial. It just is what it is.

>Re: foreign policy - I've yet to hear an original idea from
>Buttigieg (outside of his odd statement about sending the
>military to Mexico to thwart the cartels lol). The only
>commentary I've really heard of him (outside of vague
>platitudes) is when he praised Israeli security forces on the
>same day that Palestinian protesters were being mowed down.
>He is center-right to where most liberals are on foreign
>policy. That may be satisfactory to you - but given the
>urgency for a paradigm shift in how we conduct foreign policy
>- that simply doesn't pass muster - particularly with a
>candidate as inexperienced as Buttigieg - who would assuredly
>defer to the foreign policy establishment on critical issues.
>


On this, I'm not sure what to say other than if you were genuinely interested in assessing other candidates in good faith, you could make the effort to actually listen/read their actual proposals. When you say "I've yet to hear" that suggests to me that you've probably made about as much effort to understand Pete's foreign policy as I've made to understand Tulsi's lol. Only in my case, I don't tear down Tulsi's positions or experience because I'm not well-versed in them *shrug*

Speaking of which, wasn't that clash between him and Tulsi about Mexico settled several debates ago?? IIRC, he wasn't talking about sending troops to invade or fight the cartels or whatever, he was talking about security cooperation and trainings - which the US already does with Mexico. And you can't be serious about implying he's anti-Palestinian.

Anywho, I've seen you call him and other candidates center-right before but I'm not sure what your system is lol. He's as center-left as they come imo, certainly in terms of economic policy... but since you mean the foreign policy specturm I just googled non-interventionism and this wording from the definition on wikipedia is literally what Pete's said over and over again almost verbatim lol: "avoid interfering in the affairs of foreign nations relations but still retain diplomacy and trade, while avoiding wars unless related to direct self-defense."