I’m implying that no matter who the person is some will say they aren’t left enough. You see the same on the right, no matter how extremely right or authoritarian someone is there’s some on the right who say they’re not right or authoritarian enough.
Yeah to a degree. The democratic or left vote isn’t the only one that matters in elections. There’s also the independent and people on the fence on the right vote which can be substantial in an election. In short you can make some people happy some of the time but no candidate can be the ideal candidate for everyone and generally speaking a candidate who wins elections is more useful than a candidate who doesn’t win elections. It’s a balancing act. Someone can swing really far left and not even have a united camp on that side and lose out on the more moderate left vote and right vote as well as the independent, libertarian and green vote.
I think it’s quite possible your point is true, but making it in response to this image is implying something very reductive about how a lot of the left feel about her and why.
Opposing genocide isn’t a purity test or a shibboleth. It is table stakes.
Best wishes to Kamala, but all that’s happening is she is seeing all the voters who probably would have turned out for her if she’d actually represented their views - and they sure ain’t all of them socialist.
So in a vacuum, your comment is quite fair and I think I agree. In the context of this thread, however, it just seems like you’re afraid of nuance.
I hear this complaint no matter the individual in question. One can similarly see the same behavior on the right as well. No matter how right or authoritarian an individual is there’s some portion who think they aren’t right or authoritarian enough. I think it’s more so a human behavior than anything about political philosophy.
My point is pretty much what I’ve said. That is no matter the circumstance there will be a portion of the population who will say not enough has been done, that a candidate isn’t X or Y enough. I feel like I’m now just repeating my statements.
You have essentially repeated the same basic observation regardless of what I have said to you. It isn’t a point, it’s an observation whose implied point you almost seem to not want to own up to because you are beginning to realize how shallow it is:
Opposing genocide = far left
You repeated the same observation instead of engaging with what my first comment was saying, so the above is still all I really have from you, because of the context in which you made your otherwise completely unrelated observation.
I’ve disagreed with your view. Honestly the post reminded me of this general behavior humans seem to have and it’s a worthwhile discussion to ask what actually is sufficient. If something is insufficient then what is, what is the goal such that one is content? To know what direction to move one must first know the intended goal. What does a left candidate look like such that no one or at least the vast majority feel they are left enough.
You haven’t disagreed with my view, you’ve evaded it and repeated yours.
Maybe you should address the genocide because your use of ‘left’ in your incisive critique otherwise persistently nonsensical. I’ve done my best to assume earnest intent from you, but I have hit the limits of my tolerance for non-response responses.
My intention was to point out this eternal discontent that some people seem to have regardless of the circumstance. You said it was a denial of genocide, I disagreed. The general question at hand is what actually is sufficient. What does an ideal left candidate look like to you?
I already said it in another reply but I’ll say it here too, all you’re really saying in all your comments is “Can’t please everyone” which is just a truism, and really falls flat when you’re talking about Kamala Harris of all people, her dissenters are not a small group.
Your “no one is ever good enough for the left” bullshit was in direct defense of people not wanting to support someone who told them no in response to their desire for her to change the US stance on DIRECTLY SUPPORTING AN ACTIVE GENOCIDE.
You didn’t have to say it. It was implied via the context.
Firstly I would appreciate less offensive language, we can discuss like civil adults. Secondly I disagree with your opinion. I do not support any genocide much less the active genocides. What I said isn’t in the defense of anyone. It’s more so a general statement about human behavior. If you want to make it into something more than I intended then you are free but I won’t agree to it personally.
An adult can handle the word “bullshit” being used.
Wasn’t even directed at you. Grow up.
When someone, like yourself, steps into argue against someone making a point insulting a genocide enabler, in the way that you did: implying that the exact person being talked about is a great choice and people who don’t support that genocide enabler are somehow unable to be pleased…it very much aligns you with the thing your disagreement is countering the critique of. This is how communication works.
If you want to make generic comments not aligned with defending a genocide enabler, there were more appropriate avenues to do that. This was not it.
“Can’t please everyone” is a truism. The difference with Kamala is that most people consider her fake and phony. Like enough so that if you want to argue against that opinion then you’re the dissent.
Because a rotten reactionary system in service of capital will only produce rotten reactionaries or rather only rotten reactionaries or at least opportunists are willing to enter it or genuine leftists have to compromise until they only help prolong the system further by reforming it…
It’s interesting how no matter how badly a politician fucks up, people are always ready to give them more and more chances. Absolutely zero accountability.
The post did remind me of this behavior. I haven’t seen a candidate (left or right) where there isn’t a vocal group displeased with them, generally stating they are a fake, phony, or haven’t gone far enough. If something or someone is insufficient then it’s natural to ask what or who is sufficient.
Honestly the post reminded me of this general behavior humans seem to have and it’s a worthwhile discussion to ask what actually is sufficient. If something is insufficient then what is, what is the goal such that one is content?
Well, let’s start by establishing the most basic and generous standard possible: that materially supporting the mass killing of an ethnic group is disqualifying for the highest office in government. If you can’t agree with that, then you simply disagree with the idea of holding politicians to any standard whatsoever.
I think I’ve personally already done so not just for one genocide but all the current genocides as well as any other. Now I have a sneaking suspicion that alone is still insufficient. What else do you dream of in a left representing candidate? What do you believe would be sufficient such that one doesn’t really hear the argument they’re a fake or phony? What is the goal exactly.
What do you believe would be sufficient such that one doesn’t really hear the argument they’re a fake or phony?
Nothing would be, and that’s a good thing. You’re saying you don’t want to hear the argument that they’re a fake or phony. In other words, everyone would have to be convinced of their authenticity. That’s an impossible standard, and probably wouldn’t even be a good thing. People should be skeptical of politicians, even when they’re saying good things.
Put left and right aside for a second. Let’s assume that everyone is just evaluating a politician’s character. Obviously, different people are going to have all kinds of different assessments of any person’s character. Now, if we bring left and right back, then should we not evaluate people’s character just because they’re saying things we want to hear?
In the US, we are so starved for anyone saying anything remotely good that there’s this expectation that everyone should immediately rally around anybody who says anything good. But the goal isn’t just to have people say good things, but to do them, and that means critically evaluating them. Not doing that is how you get Sinemas and Fettermans.
I never said that. I was asking what that criteria would be. I so far haven’t said anything about my own personal desire. Also I never specified it just being speech. It’s just an open question to you individually what would be sufficient to be considered a worthwhile left leaning candidate. Honestly beyond my statement that some portion of people are always discontent and that I denounce genocide I really haven’t said anything about my own personal views in any comments on this thread.
I mean, there definitely are, but this is America and they have no serious power because the capitalist class supresses them. I don’t typically see much hate for the Working Families Party, for instance, but I’m pretty sure the highest level of office anyone in that party holds is at a local level.
Currently, yes. Though there have previously been two WFP reps in the Connecticut state house (WFP only has statewide ballot access in NY, OR, and CT).
It’s interesting how there’s no one socialist, left, or democrat enough. Like no matter who’s there someone will argue they are a fake and a phony.
Are you… are you trying to imply Harris is left enough?
I’m implying that no matter who the person is some will say they aren’t left enough. You see the same on the right, no matter how extremely right or authoritarian someone is there’s some on the right who say they’re not right or authoritarian enough.
Ok, but you move left enough so those who say you’re not left enough is a tiny fringe minority.
Yeah to a degree. The democratic or left vote isn’t the only one that matters in elections. There’s also the independent and people on the fence on the right vote which can be substantial in an election. In short you can make some people happy some of the time but no candidate can be the ideal candidate for everyone and generally speaking a candidate who wins elections is more useful than a candidate who doesn’t win elections. It’s a balancing act. Someone can swing really far left and not even have a united camp on that side and lose out on the more moderate left vote and right vote as well as the independent, libertarian and green vote.
Harris demonstrated nothing but contempt for those from whom she’s now seeking approval.
I think it’s quite possible your point is true, but making it in response to this image is implying something very reductive about how a lot of the left feel about her and why.
Opposing genocide isn’t a purity test or a shibboleth. It is table stakes.
Best wishes to Kamala, but all that’s happening is she is seeing all the voters who probably would have turned out for her if she’d actually represented their views - and they sure ain’t all of them socialist.
So in a vacuum, your comment is quite fair and I think I agree. In the context of this thread, however, it just seems like you’re afraid of nuance.
I hear this complaint no matter the individual in question. One can similarly see the same behavior on the right as well. No matter how right or authoritarian an individual is there’s some portion who think they aren’t right or authoritarian enough. I think it’s more so a human behavior than anything about political philosophy.
Sure but what is your point?
His point is that no one is so far to the right that he won’t pretend that the left is being unreasonable to reject them.
My point is pretty much what I’ve said. That is no matter the circumstance there will be a portion of the population who will say not enough has been done, that a candidate isn’t X or Y enough. I feel like I’m now just repeating my statements.
You are.
You have essentially repeated the same basic observation regardless of what I have said to you. It isn’t a point, it’s an observation whose implied point you almost seem to not want to own up to because you are beginning to realize how shallow it is:
Opposing genocide = far left
You repeated the same observation instead of engaging with what my first comment was saying, so the above is still all I really have from you, because of the context in which you made your otherwise completely unrelated observation.
I’ve disagreed with your view. Honestly the post reminded me of this general behavior humans seem to have and it’s a worthwhile discussion to ask what actually is sufficient. If something is insufficient then what is, what is the goal such that one is content? To know what direction to move one must first know the intended goal. What does a left candidate look like such that no one or at least the vast majority feel they are left enough.
You haven’t disagreed with my view, you’ve evaded it and repeated yours.
Maybe you should address the genocide because your use of ‘left’ in your incisive critique otherwise persistently nonsensical. I’ve done my best to assume earnest intent from you, but I have hit the limits of my tolerance for non-response responses.
Enjoy your day.
My intention was to point out this eternal discontent that some people seem to have regardless of the circumstance. You said it was a denial of genocide, I disagreed. The general question at hand is what actually is sufficient. What does an ideal left candidate look like to you?
I already said it in another reply but I’ll say it here too, all you’re really saying in all your comments is “Can’t please everyone” which is just a truism, and really falls flat when you’re talking about Kamala Harris of all people, her dissenters are not a small group.
Mamdani, next grievance.
There are literally people on this website who say he’s a fake socialist
Being the mayor of a city in a capitalist hellscape kinda has its ball and chain, and that’s all the doubt I’ll give him until he really fucks up.
E.g. me
, because he’s a social democrat
Or, he’s a real socialist working within the confines of social democracy.
“Vote for me!” throws a molotov
Well until he shows us otherwise, i.e. by working against the system to destroy it, he’s a social democrat in practice.
Should he just destroy it in NY or run this fade as high as he can go and destroy it there?
Moot point because he’s not making progress towards either 😮💨
Well… what would you do, if you were mayor?
Just promise me you bring that same heat against anyone to his right (99.99% of US politicians) because otherwise you risk doing their work for them.
Oh yeah, I promise, EZ. Like my venom for fascist and Third Way neoliberal politicians is infinite compared to Mamdani tbh.
Removed by mod
Just insulting them because they know the meaning of words?
I was being facetious, but apparently everyone here takes themselves too seriously.
I called the person a “chode.” Lighten up, people.
deleted by creator
Because they don’t
Like one or two users
Which is kinda my point. Although I’m sure I’ll now be downvoted for saying it.
Weird defense of genocide, this comment.
I didn’t say anything about genocide. What is happening in Gaza, Darfur, Burma, DRC, Xinjiang is horrific and should be stopped.
Just a genocidal candidate.
Your “no one is ever good enough for the left” bullshit was in direct defense of people not wanting to support someone who told them no in response to their desire for her to change the US stance on DIRECTLY SUPPORTING AN ACTIVE GENOCIDE.
You didn’t have to say it. It was implied via the context.
Firstly I would appreciate less offensive language, we can discuss like civil adults. Secondly I disagree with your opinion. I do not support any genocide much less the active genocides. What I said isn’t in the defense of anyone. It’s more so a general statement about human behavior. If you want to make it into something more than I intended then you are free but I won’t agree to it personally.
An adult can handle the word “bullshit” being used.
Wasn’t even directed at you. Grow up.
When someone, like yourself, steps into argue against someone making a point insulting a genocide enabler, in the way that you did: implying that the exact person being talked about is a great choice and people who don’t support that genocide enabler are somehow unable to be pleased…it very much aligns you with the thing your disagreement is countering the critique of. This is how communication works.
If you want to make generic comments not aligned with defending a genocide enabler, there were more appropriate avenues to do that. This was not it.
Context is important.
“Can’t please everyone” is a truism. The difference with Kamala is that most people consider her fake and phony. Like enough so that if you want to argue against that opinion then you’re the dissent.
Because a rotten reactionary system in service of capital will only produce rotten reactionaries or rather only rotten reactionaries or at least opportunists are willing to enter it or genuine leftists have to compromise until they only help prolong the system further by reforming it…
So there’s no means of there being a worthwhile candidate by your standards?
(unless capital can only be owned by the state (it can’t ( the state is just people too)))
The way things are going the state may be non-human sometime soon.
It’s interesting how no matter how badly a politician fucks up, people are always ready to give them more and more chances. Absolutely zero accountability.
Which politician did I speak of and who did I say to give a chance to exactly?
So was it just a coincidence that you left your OP under a Kamala Harris post?
The post did remind me of this behavior. I haven’t seen a candidate (left or right) where there isn’t a vocal group displeased with them, generally stating they are a fake, phony, or haven’t gone far enough. If something or someone is insufficient then it’s natural to ask what or who is sufficient.
Anyone to your left who has any standards at all reminds you of this behavior.
Kamala Harris, obviously.
Context is a thing that exists. If you want to play that game, technically I said “people” and not “you.”
Honestly the post reminded me of this general behavior humans seem to have and it’s a worthwhile discussion to ask what actually is sufficient. If something is insufficient then what is, what is the goal such that one is content?
Well, let’s start by establishing the most basic and generous standard possible: that materially supporting the mass killing of an ethnic group is disqualifying for the highest office in government. If you can’t agree with that, then you simply disagree with the idea of holding politicians to any standard whatsoever.
I think I’ve personally already done so not just for one genocide but all the current genocides as well as any other. Now I have a sneaking suspicion that alone is still insufficient. What else do you dream of in a left representing candidate? What do you believe would be sufficient such that one doesn’t really hear the argument they’re a fake or phony? What is the goal exactly.
Nothing would be, and that’s a good thing. You’re saying you don’t want to hear the argument that they’re a fake or phony. In other words, everyone would have to be convinced of their authenticity. That’s an impossible standard, and probably wouldn’t even be a good thing. People should be skeptical of politicians, even when they’re saying good things.
Put left and right aside for a second. Let’s assume that everyone is just evaluating a politician’s character. Obviously, different people are going to have all kinds of different assessments of any person’s character. Now, if we bring left and right back, then should we not evaluate people’s character just because they’re saying things we want to hear?
In the US, we are so starved for anyone saying anything remotely good that there’s this expectation that everyone should immediately rally around anybody who says anything good. But the goal isn’t just to have people say good things, but to do them, and that means critically evaluating them. Not doing that is how you get Sinemas and Fettermans.
I never said that. I was asking what that criteria would be. I so far haven’t said anything about my own personal desire. Also I never specified it just being speech. It’s just an open question to you individually what would be sufficient to be considered a worthwhile left leaning candidate. Honestly beyond my statement that some portion of people are always discontent and that I denounce genocide I really haven’t said anything about my own personal views in any comments on this thread.
I mean, there definitely are, but this is America and they have no serious power because the capitalist class supresses them. I don’t typically see much hate for the Working Families Party, for instance, but I’m pretty sure the highest level of office anyone in that party holds is at a local level.
Currently, yes. Though there have previously been two WFP reps in the Connecticut state house (WFP only has statewide ballot access in NY, OR, and CT).