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.
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.