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’.
Toothless? Without knowing the goal how does one know in which direction to go? I haven’t avoided it, I’ve blatantly denounced the current genocides as well as all others future or past. I don’t even agree to genocides against people who would want to see a genocide again me and the people I care about.
I think more so my main point from the beginning until now is it seems some percentage of the population will always be discontent no matter what. No matter the candidate or the circumstance there will be that discussion that they are a fake or phony. Of course that lends itself well to asking what is sufficient, what’s ideal, what is the goal.
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.
Toothless? Without knowing the goal how does one know in which direction to go? I haven’t avoided it, I’ve blatantly denounced the current genocides as well as all others future or past. I don’t even agree to genocides against people who would want to see a genocide again me and the people I care about.
I think more so my main point from the beginning until now is it seems some percentage of the population will always be discontent no matter what. No matter the candidate or the circumstance there will be that discussion that they are a fake or phony. Of course that lends itself well to asking what is sufficient, what’s ideal, what is the goal.