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.
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?
But you are tying that toothless and abstract observation to a quite specific circumstance; a situation that very much was about genocide - something you are studiously avoiding hearing from pretty much this entire thread. This is the first time you have even explicitly disagreed that it was about genocide in our exchange.
It seems like lots of people are trying to tell you that what would have been sufficient for many, many, many voters was turning our country away from the moral stain of genocide - something which, by the way, is not a political position. It is a moral one. So to the extent that you’ve articulated how this wasn’t mostly about genocide, your refutation has been ‘nuh uh’.
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.
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?
But you are tying that toothless and abstract observation to a quite specific circumstance; a situation that very much was about genocide - something you are studiously avoiding hearing from pretty much this entire thread. This is the first time you have even explicitly disagreed that it was about genocide in our exchange.
It seems like lots of people are trying to tell you that what would have been sufficient for many, many, many voters was turning our country away from the moral stain of genocide - something which, by the way, is not a political position. It is a moral one. So to the extent that you’ve articulated how this wasn’t mostly about genocide, your refutation has been ‘nuh uh’.
Not compelling.