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.
That’s a really general question and I can’t speak for anyone but myself. And if you’re going to be so cagey about your own views then it seems strange to interrogate mine.
I was happy to vote for Brandon Johnson for mayor of Chicago and he seems alright afaik. I would vote for Mamdani if I lived in New York. But even if my assessment is that they’re worth voting for, it doesn’t mean I have a problem with anyone questioning their authenticity or highlighting concerns about them.
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.
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.
That’s a really general question and I can’t speak for anyone but myself. And if you’re going to be so cagey about your own views then it seems strange to interrogate mine.
I was happy to vote for Brandon Johnson for mayor of Chicago and he seems alright afaik. I would vote for Mamdani if I lived in New York. But even if my assessment is that they’re worth voting for, it doesn’t mean I have a problem with anyone questioning their authenticity or highlighting concerns about them.