She won’t flip. She knows why the USA formed Israel, and that the USA supports what Israel is doing for its long term strategic goals.
Why do you think we provide Israel with billions of dollars every year? It’s not charity
Just like Biden virtually ignored his platform of minimum wage increase once he took office (not even one standalone bill), Harris may use Israel to gain office, but she won’t actually do anything against Israel should she win.
If she somehow gets the Hillary treatment and is shoehorned into being the Democrat nomination, I fucking quit.
Let them join. Just demand that they give several full throated endorsements
If some people in the Democratic party change their minds and stop supporting Israeli crimes, I welcome them.
While I agree, she’s pressured into it because she wants power and the trend is clear. She’s a plastic bag blowing in the wind.
The American left needs to fall out of love with cannibalism.
I don’t care why Harris wants to do the right thing now.
Allow people to save face and change their positions - attacking them for “flip flops” is to say “No reasonable adult should ever change their mind about anything” which is not only bananas, but discourages people from doing critical thinking because they’d face humiliation for reversing course.
in politics, words are cheap. I’ll believe her when she DOES something significant to demonstrate her new found beliefs. Until then, doubt.
No argument here, but I still prefer this to the alternative
Yeah, I know what you mean. I am kind of like Yay! Fuck Israel but cautious because Kamala.
She doesn’t have any tangible political power and probably never will again, so there’s that
it’s worth remembering the was one of the first to withdraw her presidential bid in 2020 because it was abundantly obvious no one was interested. she was selected as Joe Biden’s running mate to make him look more progressive than he was and to groom her for the national stage. it is abundantly clear now that the nation at large is not interested for a variety of reasons. the left sees in her the conservatism of the democratic party over the last 40 years. the right sees a variety of things depending on how their brains are broken:
- “forced diversity”
- a communist
- an impulsive woman
Wanting to start again
Wouldn’t a plastic bag float in the wind?
Al we know is thst she reached out to them. Nothing about her supporting palestinians in anyway, nothing about cutting all aids and weapons to israel
Any forward progress at all is progress
Just saying a vague buzz word without committing to specific policy position is not progress.
Kamala Harris is a very good example of what Democrats in America have become which is just a “say whatever gets the people goin’ so I can win elections” party
They can’t even win elections though
And that’s exactly why they’re a dying breed! They’re completely out of touch on what people actually care about
And they don’t say what gets the people goin’.
North America and South America were promised to the natives! Oh, it only works for white people?
Is being antizionist and for people and supportive infrastructure supposed to be a burn or what?
The joke is that she’s a two-faced and insincere person. She’ll take whatever position she thinks will let her win without believing in it for a second. Essentially, a poseur.
Yeah. I believe all hierarchical systems filter for such people. Ideally they are more convincing and delude even themselves, while still always choosing what is most beneficial for their own advancement. So it’s important to reject self serving people like Harris.
Unless I missed something, she never claimed to be a democratic socialist. In fact, she explicitly said she wasn’t during her campaign.
She’s starting a new campaign tho is the point.
she’s spent so long distancing herself from the “Communist Kamala” moniker she would never
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.
“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.
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).
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.
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.
Sure but what is your point?
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.
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.
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.
Like one or two users
Which is kinda my point. Although I’m sure I’ll now be downvoted for saying it.
E.g. me
, because he’s a social democratJust 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.
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 😮💨
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.
Because they don’t
deleted by creator
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You can do the same with Sanders, AOC and even Mamdani (the rat just used it as a platform to get elected and then let Zionazis into his admin or just retained them whenever convenient…)
I hadn’t heard that about Mamdani. A cursory search just brings up the usual articles about his anti-zionism being accused of antisemitism.
From the very beginning he started “compromising” on most important principles and showed that he is nothing but a collaborator. Just because he is making capitalism somewhat more sustainable to prolong it’s reign, doesn’t mean he is socialist in any way, shape or form…
Zohran Mamdani states he will have Nazis in his administration
https://hexbear.net/post/6442067
Zohran Mamdani calls Cuba and Venezuela dictatorships
https://hexbear.net/post/6360301
Other picked examples, in the end he is just a collaborator to capital that stains the word socialism:
Mamdani’s New Trans Direct Clinic Will Deny Care To Those Under 19
https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/mamdanis-new-trans-direct-clinic
https://hexbear.net/post/8725363
Imagine policing your wife’s likes on twitter because a bunch of people that hate you complained about them
https://hexbear.net/post/7940512
Trash recognizes Trash
This is impressive research, I wish users like this had the same level of energy for compiling these dossiers against literally anyone to the right of center (Most of the DNC).
hexbears posting from instances that haven’t been widely defederated will always be hilarious
My Hexbear account has 0 posts and 0 comments, they just listed good examples which fit the discussion of this thread.
But you do you hating on other socialistsRemoved by mod
Removed by mod
Thank you for the thoughtful response. I’ll get to reading the many sources.
Like Malcolm X said: The ballot or the bullet
All electoralism can ever give us is enough breathing room to organize. Rather than criticizing politicians I’d rather criticize an entire rotten system
TMW when you can do both 🤯
Why should we not critisise rotten opportunists who stain the word socialism every time they misuse it to mean their “left”-liberalism?
not really sure why my comment explaining the problem has gotten inundated with upvotes while your comment pointing out the problem has been downvoted into oblivion. you were at -2 when i woke up to check on the bear in my back yard.
and yeah. we absolutely have to do both hence the Malcolm X quote
An actually socialist opinion in MY palatable wholesome “left”-liberal demsoc (systemic critiques banned) community??!!! 🤯🤯🤯
No, ya see, you can’t because you literally just mentioned the 3 top progressives that have always been progressives in our current government. Their options haven’t swayed.
Either way, Kamala will never be the president I want no matter how hard she tries to pretend she will be. I just hope the DNC had finally learned that being the lesser of two evils won’t win a presidency anymore.
Ur a rat 😤
Is the “/s” missing? lol
You can do the same with any opportunist clown that calls themselves “democratic socialist”, there’s straight up not an ounce of “socialism” to be found in them. Hell, Mussolini was infinitely more socialist than them lol
Exactly, absolute trvke
