1. You CANNOT be a capitalist and an anti-imperialist.
Capitalism = an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market
Imperialism = the policy, practice, or advocacy of extending the power and dominion of a nation especially by direct territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas
There is no inherent definitional overlap. You're essentially positing that there can never be an isolationist capitalist state, or there can never be an expansionist socialist/communist state. History is obviously rife with examples of both. History is also filled with examples of imperialist capitalist states, the current era United States being one, but that relationship is not inextricably linked. Again, it seems like you're falling into that trendy trap of lazily throwing out "capitalism" as the cause of all the world's problems. It deserves a much more robust critique than the quality of thinking you're displaying here.
2. Capitalism is not simply a theory of markets
See, this is the crux of your issue here. Your definition of capitalism is not the same as the one Warren is using. The way she is utilizing the term is directly tied to the emancipatory power of
markets. (see:
Elizabeth Warren’s Theory of Capitalism) She always brings it back to healthy, well-regulated markets. When she says she's a "capitalist to her bones", she's talking about how well regulated markets can provide incredible social and economic gains for broad swaths of the population and working class. You seem to be conflating "crony capitalism" with "capitalism" proper, perhaps believing the latter inevitably leads to the former. But ultimately, we're still talking about how to structure markets. All economic theories are theories of markets. Marxism, communism, libertarianism, capitalism, etc.
3.

@ internationalizing the progressive movement. IT ALREADY EXISTS IN OTHER COUNTRIES. It's called social democracy. The real leftist movements include: democratic socialism, socialism, communism, libertarianism (the real philosophy, not the white boy American kind), and anarchism.
If you cannot see the resurgence of far-right movements across the globe, particularly Europe, and the need to provide a robust progressive counter-movement, your head is stuck up your ass, with all due respect. Saying "well, the communist movement already has a (minuscule) presence in these countries, so there's no need for the most powerful nation in the world to provide material support to the progressive movements across the globe" is very disturbing, and enables these far-right movements to thrive. There's an ideological war going on. Having Bernie or Liz internationalize their movements is perhaps the most important foreign policy tenet at this moment in history. You're smarter than this.
4. Your description of Yemen, Syria, and Libya on military terms exposes you for the same neo con shyt that is emblematic of Tusli supporters. You guys never see foreign policy from the perspective of those living in the moment fighting for self determination. Your foreign policy analysis is simple minded and short because you will always see it as a troops, money, and bills kind of thing.
Your desire to virtue signal has led you to make what is a really stupid point here, divorced from reality. The primary relationship the United States has with those three countries is rendered through a militaristic lens due to the geopolitical history of these regions. I would find your inability to connect the presence of literal military troops in these countries with their population's quest for self-determination to be stunningly idiotic if I didn't believe you were being disingenuous with this point. I'd like you to tell the people of Yemen that the United States' militaristic and financial support of the Saudi regime is inconsequential to the existential state of their nation and people, that it's just a "troops, money, and bills" kind of thing, that if they were truly "living in the moment fighting for self determination" they would be concerned about other affairs, as they have genocide perpetrated against them.
Whatever. Y'all love genocide until a Republican is behind it.
I can do this all day. Y'all don't reeeeally want to have these conversations.
Congratulations, you've discovered how disgusting the mainstream US foreign policy, both Democrat and Republican, is towards Palestinian people! Warren has held some horrific views on this issue. Even Bernie has parroted genocidal "both sides" rhetoric against the Palestinian people, and he's the best candidate on this specific issue! If you're a single issue voter on Israel-Palestine, Bernie is probably the choice for you, but Noam Chomsky isn't on the ballot. I wish he was, and it's a fukking shame that these are our options...but these are our options. There are no clean hands, just some with less blood on them than others. I honestly respect anyone who refuses to vote based on that. I'm sure as hell not here to convince anyone Elizabeth Warren has a clean record or is even the best candidate when it comes to this issue.